Why Use InDesignBefore we go any further, we should probably ask an important question: If you already know how to use QuarkXPress, why bother with Adobe InDesign? If you're sitting on the fence between the two programs, you've probably spent a lot of time asking yourself this recently. If you've already fallen head over heels for InDesign, then your boss, your printer, and your clients are likely asking you. So, let's look at some of the reasons we find InDesign so compelling. FeaturesWhile InDesign and XPress both have a core set of features which are similar (and sometimes identical), they each have some features that the other does not. For example, QuarkXPress has custom lines (dashes and stripes), drag-and-drop text, and the ability to mix together spot colors into custom swatchesInDesign does none of these things. Nevertheless, if you analyze the two programs's feature lists, InDesign is ultimately the overwhelming winner. Here are a few reasons why.
Granted, features aren't everything. But features are like tools on a Swiss Army knifethe right feature at the right time can be a major lifesaver! Of course, there was no one feature that convinced us that InDesign is a great tool; rather it is the broad assortment of InDesign's features that make our work easier.On the other hand, if you absolutely cannot live without one of the features that is only found in XPress, then you're stuck (until Adobe adds that feature). Just for the record, here's a list of some other features XPress 5 has that InDesign 2 does not (in our experience, few XPress users ever use these features anyway):
PerformanceHere's one more feature that XPress 5 has that InDesign does not: It runs better on older, slower computers. InDesign's feature set comes at a cost: It's RAM and processor hungryanything less than a Pentium 4 or G4 processor with 256 MB of RAM will make your InDesign experience frustraiting, especially with longer documents. Generally, any machine on which you'd be happy running Photoshop will also support InDesign.But computing power is only half the equation when it comes to being productive in a program. In 2002, Pfeiffer Consulting conducted extensive tests exploring what happened to business productivity when companies began to use InDesign. The results were fascinating (you can read them yourself at www.pfeifferreport.com ). In short, they found that what saved the most time was not the raw speed of the computer or the software, but was reducing the number of steps required to build a document.At first, it made us crazy that InDesign imports Microsoft Word documents significantly slower than XPress (particularly long documents). Then we found that while we lose a little time at import, we gain a lot more time because InDesign does so much automatically (or with a single step) that we had to do manually in XPress (with many steps). For example, anyone who has spent the afternoon trying to get text to look just right by adding manual line breaks, discretionary hyphens, and other typographic tweaks will be astonished at how little of that is necessary because of InDesign's paragraph composer. (That said, Adobe engineers have assured us that they're working on making the import feature faster in future versions of InDesign.)Similarly, InDesign saves steps by letting you make drop shadows in the page-layout program, drawing a frame for you when you import text or graphics (if you don't already have one), converting Word and Excel tables to editable tables upon import, and even maintaining the editability of vector artwork (from Illustrator or FreeHand) that you paste onto your pages.The Pfeiffer Report found astonishing efficiency increases in some areas of work (like making PDF files) and found that InDesign equalled XPress in other areas. In their benchmark testing, it took designers two to three times longer to create a document in XPress than in InDesign. What's Your ROI?For many people, especially at larger companies, the biggest hurdle to using InDesign is not learning the features (you've already got that handled by buying this book) but convincing "the suits." After all, arguments like "It's got more features!" and "I can go home early if I use it" don't go over well with those folks we affectionately call the bean counters.When approaching your boss, you need to use phrases like "return on investment" (ROI) and "increasing workflow integration for gigahertz productivity enhancements." (The latter expression doesn't actually mean anything, but it's very impressive.)Of course, measuring ROI in the publishing industry is difficult. For a small design firm, the investment is simply the cost of the new software and a couple of books or training classes to help you learn it. The return can be anything from cooler designs that help you get more clients to saving time on producing a big job.Larger companies tend to think about the cost of retraining (both in money and hours lost from the production cycle), and the returns come in reducing headcount and expenses. Fortunately, the Pfeiffer Report also looked at ROI issues, briefly mentioning how Australia's largest magazine publisher, ACP, cut their prepress costs in half while moving 40 magazines (including Cosmopolitan and 7 weeklies) to InDesign. Designers and the production team put one issue of a magazine to bed with XPress and the next issue was createdcover to coverwith InDesign. It was a highly successful operation, and the company reportedly saved so much money (in the relative cost of the software plus in reducing prepress expenses) that they could afford to buy new computers for everyone (we're still waiting for ours). Add a Tool, Don't Replace ItOur publisher keeps calling this a "switcher book," for people who want to switch to InDesign. Our response is: No, it's for people who want to add InDesign to their repertoire. We expect that there are very few people who will be in the position to completely drop QuarkXPress, just like we all have copies of PageMaker on our machines, even though we have no intention of creating any new documents with that program. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, it's likely that you'll need to know how to use both programs (or at least keep someone on staff who does).But doesn't InDesign open XPress documents? Sure it does, but not necessarily perfectly. In Appendix A, we explain what does and doesn't translate and how you should best use this feature.Our colleague Sandee Cohen notes that people who start using InDesign often try to fit it into the same workflow they're accustomed to. Sure, you can replace XPress with InDesign and keep doing everything else the same, but you're going to miss out on a lot InDesign has to offer. Using InDesign is all about finding new and better ways of workingintegrating all your tools together for maximum efficiency. For More InformationAs we said earlier, as deep as we can go in the next 400 pages, we don't expect to answer every question you ever have about InDesign. For example, we don't cover how to script InDesign or import/export XML. Fortunately, there are other resources out there. Here's a few places you can go for more information.
AcknowledgementsWe'd like to give special thanks to a few of the people who helped us turn a crazy idea into the book you're now holding. First, many thanks to the folks at Adobe who gave us a great product and have helped support this book, including Will Eisley, Tim Cole, Mark Neimann-Ross, Eliot Harper, Thomas Phinney, Lonn Lorenz, Matt Phillips, Michael Wallen, Jim Ringham, David Cohen, Mike Silverman, Susan Prescott, Carrie Cooper, Tim Plumer, Joe Smith, Ron Ditorro, and Olav Martin "Ole" Kvern.Thanks to our Peachpit editor, Serena Herr, for her extraordinary patience and (usually) gentle nudges to get it done. To Jeff Tolbert for his great (and fast) production. To Lisa Brazieal for her help in riding this wild Harley all the way to the printer. To Conrad Chavez, for his excellent technical editing. And to Caroline Parks, whose eagle eye produced a terrific index.Our sincere appreciation for a wealth of good information goes to Sandee "Vector Babe" Cohen, Deke "The Man" McClelland, Cyndie Shaffstall at The PowerXChange, the InDesign beta testers, and participants in the BlueWorld InDesign list and the InDesign User to User Forums.Steve: "Thanks to Bent Kjolby and the staff at Rapid Lasergraphics for giving me the freedom to develop and teach my classes. Thanks to my students, who have taught me so much. Thanks to Astrid Wasserman of Key3Media and Thad McIlroy for encouraging me to teach at Seybold Seminars. And finally thanks to Harry and all our friends who have provided me with the support I needed during the months it took to write this book."Christopher: "Thanks to the instructors at AGI Training, especially Brian Reese, Larry Happy and Jennifer Smith for their input as we have made our own transition from QuarkXPress to InDesign. A special thanks to Grant for encouraging me (frequently) to take a break from writing and read Dr. Seuss books with him."David: "My deepest appreciation goes to my beloved wife, Debbie, and our delightful son, Gabriel, who are such blessings in my life. Thanks, too, to a host of generous friends and family who remind me that as much as I like digital, analog is even better." |
لطفا منتظر باشید ...
