- Sep 9, 2008--- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "Gerald Lange" <Bieler@...> wrote:
>Gerald, both sides of this argument seem pretty damn subjective. I
> When InDesign was first leaked it was known as K2 (meaning 2000):
> the Quark Killer. It did just that. Quark was intuitive?, you have
> got to be kidding.
went straight from metal type to XPress 3.2, no computing experience,
hadn't even done phototype since school 20 years before. I found it
extremely easy to learn, everything I knew from assembling type into
lines and pages was there, so for me "intuitive" would be accurate.
All I need to do in digital typesetting, I can still do in v
4.1--but then I don't do catalogs. Never experienced any instability,
never had to deal with their hated customer service, nor did my
associates. I've used Adobe products too, but found the tools for
handling type completely obscure without using the manual and
therefore "non-intuitive". But I have said this before.
I haven't used InDesign yet, maybe I'll have a conversion
experience with it, but frankly I've come to hate learning new
software. My ageing brain can only process so much, and learning
linecasters--a finite realm--is infinitely more satisfying.
--Eric Holub, SF
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>