Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10120Re: Ragemaker

Expand Messages
  • parallel_imp
    Sep 9, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "Gerald Lange" <Bieler@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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.

      Gerald, both sides of this argument seem pretty damn subjective. I
      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
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic