Quark or InDesign?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Robin Sherman on July 3, 2008 at 11:10am

I use both InDesign CS3 and Quark 7.31. I also use Photoshop and Illustrator. Both have advantages over the other. Both have weaknesses. On balance I'd say their capabilities (features) are more or less equal.

However, their ease of use, to me, is not equal. Quark is by far easier for me to use. I find Quark's user interface much more logical and intuitive than any of the Adobe products, especially for a new user, which I am not. It's easier for me to find what I need in Quark than in InDesign. As much as Adobe wants us to believe there is much synchronization among their products, and there is a good bit, but to a large extent, it just ain't so. And what is, ain't as logically organized or intuitive as Quark.

I went through the same problems everyone else did with Quark several years back. But now I find their technical and customer service to be top notch.

There, I've said it. I can hear the grumbling now.

Robin Sherman
Editorial & Design Services

For Books, Journals, Magazines, Manuals, Newsletters, Internet

— Information Architecture, Content Development, Organization, Improvement
— Developmental, Substantive, Copy Editing
— Publication Critiques
— Publication Design
— Typesetting, Typography, Layout
— Speaker, Seminars, Workshops

Small Publisher and Non-Profit Specialist

http://www.forumfolios.org/Robin_Sherman
(newest samples yet to be posted; I'm working, after all)
robinsherman@bellsouth.net

Look for me on LinkedIn.com
(www.linkedin.com/in/robinshermaneditdesign)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Amanda Fletcher on July 3, 2008 at 1:15pm

My publications use Indesign CS3 exclusively. About five years ago we switched over from -- I hate to admit this -- Pagemaker. Because they were both Adobe products, the staff and I had very few problems adapting to the new interface. And I love how integrated Photoshop, Illustrator, and Indesign are, and how if you know how to use one, chances are the menus and shortcuts will be the same in the other. On the occasions I've had to open Quark, I'm almost completely lost. However, the last version I worked with was 5.0, so I'm sure it's changed quite a bit.

I suppose I'm just as blind in this debate, but I love Indesign, and I don't think I'd ever volunteer to switch to Quark.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bob Long on July 31, 2008 at 11:29am

Hi Amanda
I've never apologized for being a fan of PageMaker all the way through version 7. When I went over to InDesign 1 and up to CS2, it made the transition a whole lot easier.
I saw Quark "in the womb" in 1988. I was not overwhelmed. Years later I met a sales rep. at a "show" and was disappointed in their answers to my color questions. I never liked the "children/parent" discussions of how to use it as I get tired of "cutesy."
Another point is that the amount of reference and how to use manuals on InDesign far exceed anything out there on Quark. And though I have been using InDesign a long time, I still discover new things thanks to the books and other sources.
Since InDesign is derivative of PageMaker, which was about as logical as a program can get, I "wonder" about Robin's comment about which is easier to use.
However, I have used FREEHAND and I can't really come to grips with Illustrator. It seems so unintuitive to me.
InDesign works for me.
Bob

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kathe Lemon on July 6, 2008 at 2:27pm

From an editorial side note on InDesign, we use InDesign with InCopy and I have found it to be very useful, especially with offsite workers. InCopy allows changes to be made and then implemented into InDesign meaning the editorial side can work on editorial changes without having to stop the design side from working on the file at the same time. When we first heard about it, this seemed to open up the potential for HUGE difficulties, but we have not found that to be the case and it seems to save us a lot of time and shouting about who is in which file.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Todd Hagler on July 7, 2008 at 11:30am

As a custom publisher whose team works on a variety of publications, each with their own unique demands, I use InDesign exclusively. As Kathe comments, using InDesign in combination with InCopy is invaluable. With lots of projects going at once, providing the editorial team the ability to make edits from within the layout is a great timesaver. At last years Folio: show I was surprised to learn how few publishers had made the change over to InDesign from Quark. Even more surprised to realize fewer still were aware of the great advantages of InCopy. Having gone through the process of changing over a busy publishing team from Quark to an all InDesign workflow, I can attest to the huge advantages. Of course there was resistance from some of the design staff who were long time Quark users (for many it was the only program they'd ever used.) There was some trepidation about damaging layouts from members of editorial who were being given a new level of engagement with the material they produce. And IT was concerned about the cross platform issues. But the change over went very smooth. And those Quark users who originally resisted? Once they actually used the program and realized how much more they could do, and how much easier and faster they could do it – the only question was why hadn't we done this sooner.

Robin apparently hasn't had the opportunity to experience a file being worked on by a designer in InDesign on a Mac, an editor in InCopy on a PC, and a photo retoucher in Photoshop--all at the same time. It's amazing. Anyone who has ever placed a native Photoshop file in their InDesign layout and had it update automatically or turned off/on different layers directly from inside InDesign without returning to Photoshop couldn't possibly claim that the products aren't synchronized and keep a straight face.

Publishing is about information. It's about sharing that information in the most relevant and compelling way. In print or online. For me the question is how to make the challenge of creating that content (editorial, photography, and design) the easiest and most rewarding for my creative team. The answer is InDesign.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robin Sherman on July 7, 2008 at 4:10pm

Hi all,

1) To reiterate, I use both InDesign CS3 and Quark 7.31.
2) Have any of you heard of Quark CopyDesk, which does virtually all of the things you get from InCopy? It's been around for awhile. Perhaps it does some things that InCopy can't do and perhaps it can't do some things that InCopy does. Just as I said above, each program has its strengths and weaknesses.
3) There is heavy synchronization within Quark and with other programs, namely Adobe's. Moreover, for many smaller publishing companies, one could easily use Quark exclusively and not use Illustrator or Photoshop or Acrobat. This is because Quark incorporates many of the tools of both and will incorporate more in Quark 8, coming out very soon.
5) Quark has had layers for quite some time now.
6) Quark is cross-platform.
7) Quark customer and technical service is better than ever in the last 2 years, in my experience.
8) Quark also allows artists and editors to work simultaneously on a document and one can lock-down certain areas of a layout as well to protect the design, for example. Publications with different trim sizes can be handled within the same Quark document so that the magazine and perhaps a media kit can be worked on at the same time. Quark has split screen capability.

Yes, I am defending Quark at the moment because after reading the posts herein, I feel that many of you have not kept up with what Quark is doing.

I seek only to attempt to analyze the products objectively or in a more balance manner.

So, just for the heck of it, why not go to the Quark Web site and look at the features of the new Quark coming out soon and 7.31 and look at the Quark CopyDesk features as well. And try to find out about the next iteration of InDesign, too.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Richard Michem on July 7, 2008 at 12:06pm

Ah, the oldest day> When a would be mag publisher, had to look all over, hell, to find an art director who knew magazine lay out. If only I had a computer then> I like Quark, first you do have to have some knowledge of how to use something like PAINT SHOP PRO, , InDesign, seem to be over prices and a little hard to use> The first time I used Quark, much to my surprise, in less then an hour, i found myself, staring at a damn good looking Mag Cover> Another hours, I had the layout, of a magazine done,(about 40 pages). I guess it really depend on what you feel at ease using.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kevin Convertito on July 7, 2008 at 3:25pm

InDesign CS2 across the board on 10+ older PowerPC Macs right now, tho some CS3 photoshops are creeping into the building...We grudgingly purchased one copy of Quark 7 just to output PDFs for one advertiser who refused to submit anything but native Quark files...However, on a recent freelance job, I was forced to work in Quark 7 for three days straight, and aside from the first few hours of missing my InDesign quick keys, Quark came came back to me pretty easily (and I haven't touched it since v4.1 in OS9...) The only reason that publisher bought Quark is his templates were in Quark 4 and he just didn't know better... Regardless they're just tools, and Adobe tools are now the industry standard—I just hope they don't start to blow it customer service-wise like Quark did...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by marisol on July 29, 2008 at 3:46pm

We use Indesign CS3. It works better with other adobe programs and its very intuitive. I love it!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Beatriz Antelo on July 30, 2008 at 9:16pm

I've used Quark forever and only started using InDesign this past year. I have to say it was love at first site when I first used InDesign. I still use Quark for some publications that haven't been transitioned. But anything new I work on is done in InDesign. InDesign is here to stay. It's smooth and less "quirky" then Quark. Fonts seem to work a lot smoother and there seem to be a lot less hiccups and crashes.
But this is what's good now. I remember using PageMaker too before Quark came along and it was the best thing ever. What will be the next big hit?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Griffin on July 31, 2008 at 12:57pm

indesign. I've use Photoshop for years so it wasn't a huge splash in. Used Quark a long time ago and didn't like it. I don't have any interest in what's been updated or improved since then. I spend hours staring at the screen and working the interface during my time in. I have to enjoy that experience so the most attractive GUI usually wins. Overall I feel you can make a fine publication in either so it's down to preferences and not always from a 'most new features' standpoint.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Chernoff on July 31, 2008 at 12:59pm

We switched over from QPS 3.5 and QXP 6.5 3 years ago to InDesign CS2/InCopy and K4 (and have upgraded ID/IC/K4 so we are at CS3). We are a magazine publisher so we use our layout software for both editorial work and ad design/production.

On the art/editorial side no one would be willing to go back to QXP (and we do keep up to date with it). There are so many things that are basic to us that QXP has failed to update in QXP 7, such as style sheets and master pages. Which is odd because the many people who I have worked with from Quark seemed to understand our needs very well and agreed that what we wanted should have been addressed.

Take style sheets. Modifying a style sheet in ID is much easier than in QXP. You can modify a paragraph and then say "change the definition of the applied style sheet to match this paragraph's format" or change the style and have preview on so you can see how the entire spread changes without committing to it. Plus features such as nested styles that save us hours of work many months. I have found that designers use style sheets much more frequently in ID than in QXP due to greater ease of use.

And we could not live without ID's powerful Find & Replace options.

So there are features in QXP 7 that we would like to have, but might be much more important if we were an ad agency. Even QPS has a feature that we miss but we have been able to work around.

The transition to ID has been hardest for our production people because they don't get to live in ID, they have to deal with ads produced in all sorts of programs, mostly QXP (though fixing PDFs is the growing trend). It is harder for them to sit down in ID and take advantage of its approach to layout because they still have to work in QXP. And their work tends to not take advantage of ID features that our artists use. So the type of work will influence which program you prefer. (Plus it is time for me to provide them with more ID training).

Plus there are always issues that will affect which you will prefer. We have found that our layout to xml to html conversions go much more smoothly with ID than they ever did with QXP.

But I have a mantra for our ID/IC users: "If you are spending time doing tedious repetitive tasks, you are doing it wrong." The number of hours of ID features and implementations over when we were QXP users are numerous.

A note to anyone thinking of switching. We discovered QXP features and techniques while we were comparing the 2 programs, so if we did continue with QXP there were efficiencies we could have picked up. I just want to point out that things are not black and white.

And that said, I am looking forward to getting our copies of QXP 8 when it is released.

I am curious about what versions of QXP people are using. Is anyone still insisting on staying at version 4? Are many still at 6/6.5 and deciding whether to upgrade? Or has QXP 7 become widely adopted by QXP users?

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last