Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Quark 6 in January
- Thread starter neilt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Take some responsibility in your work
Wow. What a blatantly out-of-context cheap shot. E-coli, you really need to learn how to quote a source (where's the ... after etc,?). I didn't think so at first, but "you're one of those people I'm talking about." If I had a client whose job I screwed up and I blamed a computer program for the error, that client would go find someone else. The client doesn't care WHY. Why should the client want my services when I didn't care enough about the job to BOTH read it myself (check one) and then give it to either an in-house or outsourced proofreader (check two) before giving it back to the client for a final sign-off (check three)? Proofreading mistakes will always be a difficult part of a designer's/production artist's/client's job, but not taking the necessary steps to ensure that it happens as infrequently as possible is irresponsible, unprofessional, and quite frankly, lazy. Shortcuts can kill. People who allow themselves to become dependent on computer programs just to avoid proofing it themselves are the ones who are "ridiculous, utterly ridiculous." An application is a tool, not a crutch. Stop using it like one.
And while we're at it.
Is Quark's spellcheck unreliable? Yes. Big yes. I stated that. Does it randomly revert runarounds and trap sets? Not in my experience. I know the program well, so I know what it can and cannot be relied upon to do, and I take measures to overcome its weaknesses. I suspect most spellcheck engines are fairly similar, and I have spotted spellcheck misses in Word, Excel, and other apps. I know that when I give ID2 another shot, it will most likely miss a spellcheck down the road. It happens (although I'm not sure why spellchecking in many apps can be such a crapshoot). However, repeatedly using an app to perform a task you KNOW it doesn't adequately perform without taking further precautions is just not too bright.
Anyway, I apologize to the rest of the board for straying off course of the topic here, I just wanted to clarify what I DID say, and anyone who read that previous post carefully will know.
Wow. What a blatantly out-of-context cheap shot. E-coli, you really need to learn how to quote a source (where's the ... after etc,?). I didn't think so at first, but "you're one of those people I'm talking about." If I had a client whose job I screwed up and I blamed a computer program for the error, that client would go find someone else. The client doesn't care WHY. Why should the client want my services when I didn't care enough about the job to BOTH read it myself (check one) and then give it to either an in-house or outsourced proofreader (check two) before giving it back to the client for a final sign-off (check three)? Proofreading mistakes will always be a difficult part of a designer's/production artist's/client's job, but not taking the necessary steps to ensure that it happens as infrequently as possible is irresponsible, unprofessional, and quite frankly, lazy. Shortcuts can kill. People who allow themselves to become dependent on computer programs just to avoid proofing it themselves are the ones who are "ridiculous, utterly ridiculous." An application is a tool, not a crutch. Stop using it like one.
And while we're at it.
There IS undo in Quark.
No you don't. You can set that in each tool's preferences.
It does? Looks just the way type looks in Illustrator or Fontographer to me.
What does this even mean? You don't actually rely on your monitor for color, do you?
Sure there is. Just create your grid on the master page and hit F7.
Is Quark's spellcheck unreliable? Yes. Big yes. I stated that. Does it randomly revert runarounds and trap sets? Not in my experience. I know the program well, so I know what it can and cannot be relied upon to do, and I take measures to overcome its weaknesses. I suspect most spellcheck engines are fairly similar, and I have spotted spellcheck misses in Word, Excel, and other apps. I know that when I give ID2 another shot, it will most likely miss a spellcheck down the road. It happens (although I'm not sure why spellchecking in many apps can be such a crapshoot). However, repeatedly using an app to perform a task you KNOW it doesn't adequately perform without taking further precautions is just not too bright.
Anyway, I apologize to the rest of the board for straying off course of the topic here, I just wanted to clarify what I DID say, and anyone who read that previous post carefully will know.
If you had read my post, you would have seen how we've stayed in business. Four of those reprints are at customers' cost for giving us "ready-for-press" files that were not. In Quark. Done poorly. By expensive designers. Who have degrees in the field.
And yes, Quark DID revert on a runaround and on trapping settings with no crash and no operator error. I had backups of my files with the correct dates and times to prove it (backups are wonderful things).
As for spell-check, the proofreader didn't catch the error either. Neither did the client, who signed off. Their cost again.
So maybe your experience doesn't include all of the buggy things Quark does.
And yes, Quark DID revert on a runaround and on trapping settings with no crash and no operator error. I had backups of my files with the correct dates and times to prove it (backups are wonderful things).
As for spell-check, the proofreader didn't catch the error either. Neither did the client, who signed off. Their cost again.
So maybe your experience doesn't include all of the buggy things Quark does.
GraphicUmp, you seem to have some very bad luck with Quark. But I'm curious, if ID2 has no problem with qxd file conversion, and is in your opinion so superior to Quark, have you tried just doing all your pre-flight in ID? Why do you have to use Q at all?
Re: Take some responsibility in your work
I think it is the person rolling the dice.
Spellcheckers are not miracle workers. Someone still has to be able to read to see if the proper word is being used. I blame the automated "spellcheck as I type" engines for the rampant substitution of the word "loose" on the web when "lose" is actually meant, merely because "loose" comes up first alphabetically and the 1-d-10-t user behind the keyboard signs off on it.
All spelling errors in this post are honestly my own.
I think it is the person rolling the dice.
Spellcheckers are not miracle workers. Someone still has to be able to read to see if the proper word is being used. I blame the automated "spellcheck as I type" engines for the rampant substitution of the word "loose" on the web when "lose" is actually meant, merely because "loose" comes up first alphabetically and the 1-d-10-t user behind the keyboard signs off on it.
All spelling errors in this post are honestly my own.
Re: Take some responsibility in your work
man, what a way to take something personally. i specifically said, "nothing personal". chill out, have a beer.
My point was, everyone seems to always make excuses for why Quark sucks so uttely and completely. And as long as people keep accepting half-finished products that pose a huge liability, then we will continue to be stuck with them.
And, btw, you must be a REALLY slow design studio if you have time to read 65 pages through 13 different text edits amoungst other projects. Personally, I would rather run spell check and be done with it. I don't have time mess with half-baked technology. Neither do my employees.
BTW, I've never had a single problem with the InDesign spell check. And yes, a program is a tool. It should function properly.
To each his own. this is a childish debate. use what you will, but i certainly didn't mean for you to get worked into such a tizzy.
truce.
man, what a way to take something personally. i specifically said, "nothing personal". chill out, have a beer.
My point was, everyone seems to always make excuses for why Quark sucks so uttely and completely. And as long as people keep accepting half-finished products that pose a huge liability, then we will continue to be stuck with them.
And, btw, you must be a REALLY slow design studio if you have time to read 65 pages through 13 different text edits amoungst other projects. Personally, I would rather run spell check and be done with it. I don't have time mess with half-baked technology. Neither do my employees.
BTW, I've never had a single problem with the InDesign spell check. And yes, a program is a tool. It should function properly.
To each his own. this is a childish debate. use what you will, but i certainly didn't mean for you to get worked into such a tizzy.
truce.
Attachments
Thanks for the beer!
When you said nothing personal, I believed you e-coli! My retort wasn't meant to be personal, I just felt you must have misunderstood the previous post. Sorry if it ruffled any feathers. And damn, I'm just tired of coming off sounding like I'm defending Quark. I'm not. Nor am I a luddite. I may have pissed off GraphicUmp though. Seriously, if the ID2 conversions of Q files are all kosher, can a person take old Q files, convert them and then run ID2's spellcheck and pre-flight on them? Or does it depend on the complexity of the files? Seems like this would solve a lot of the problems posted here, and aid in making a smoother transition to ID2.
Also, with regard to proofing, I send out for major proof jobs and pass the cost along to the client. It's a necessity to me, not a luxury. And as Wry Cooter aptly noted, you can't spellcheck for context.
Again, I'm sorry if I came off too strong, but I always play devil's advocate when it comes to major technology switches like this one. I agree with theranch though, send me a Guiness or a Warsteiner next time!
When you said nothing personal, I believed you e-coli! My retort wasn't meant to be personal, I just felt you must have misunderstood the previous post. Sorry if it ruffled any feathers. And damn, I'm just tired of coming off sounding like I'm defending Quark. I'm not. Nor am I a luddite. I may have pissed off GraphicUmp though. Seriously, if the ID2 conversions of Q files are all kosher, can a person take old Q files, convert them and then run ID2's spellcheck and pre-flight on them? Or does it depend on the complexity of the files? Seems like this would solve a lot of the problems posted here, and aid in making a smoother transition to ID2.
Also, with regard to proofing, I send out for major proof jobs and pass the cost along to the client. It's a necessity to me, not a luxury. And as Wry Cooter aptly noted, you can't spellcheck for context.
Again, I'm sorry if I came off too strong, but I always play devil's advocate when it comes to major technology switches like this one. I agree with theranch though, send me a Guiness or a Warsteiner next time!
More delays?
Check out this bit of info from another thread:
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=13719
If it's true it might mean more migration from Quark to InDesign as many get antsy to switch to OSX.
Check out this bit of info from another thread:
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=13719
If it's true it might mean more migration from Quark to InDesign as many get antsy to switch to OSX.
Quark Jan 6
Quark have finished the version 6 beta. I have seen it. It is everything 5 should have been and comes with new tool bars and a very similar look to Photoshop 7.
It has been in final beta for some months now so I cannot see why it would be delayed. Don't forget they released 5 due to user reasearch on wanting 5 out at it''s scheduled release date rather than a wait on an OSX version which would have been out now but only around Oct this year. Talk to current version 5 users and ask if they would have wanted to wait until then
Quark have finished the version 6 beta. I have seen it. It is everything 5 should have been and comes with new tool bars and a very similar look to Photoshop 7.
It has been in final beta for some months now so I cannot see why it would be delayed. Don't forget they released 5 due to user reasearch on wanting 5 out at it''s scheduled release date rather than a wait on an OSX version which would have been out now but only around Oct this year. Talk to current version 5 users and ask if they would have wanted to wait until then
Re: Re: Take some responsibility in your work
You really need to learn how to get a life buddy. You obviously have no idea about what production, technical, values and issues go into producing hard copy from your computer. Try pointing a stick at the prepress market and tell me how many of them are using Quark... yes, over 50%!! Not bad for one company!! It must have something to do with the product doing what people want.. try doing the same for print houses and ask them which application is easier to manage their pint presses..... Again over 50% of them say Quark....
GROW UP!!
You really need to learn how to get a life buddy. You obviously have no idea about what production, technical, values and issues go into producing hard copy from your computer. Try pointing a stick at the prepress market and tell me how many of them are using Quark... yes, over 50%!! Not bad for one company!! It must have something to do with the product doing what people want.. try doing the same for print houses and ask them which application is easier to manage their pint presses..... Again over 50% of them say Quark....
GROW UP!!
Question about Postcripting
I realize it is dangerous to criticize Quark in this thread, so I will just pose a simple question. For those who are concerned about printers not accepting InDesign files, have you ever considered using PS or PDF format? I have been using InDesign for two years and most of my printers don't even know it. Anyone who is purchasing a new G4 between now and December 31 should take Adobe up on their offer and at least try using InDesign once. Afterall, it's free.
I realize it is dangerous to criticize Quark in this thread, so I will just pose a simple question. For those who are concerned about printers not accepting InDesign files, have you ever considered using PS or PDF format? I have been using InDesign for two years and most of my printers don't even know it. Anyone who is purchasing a new G4 between now and December 31 should take Adobe up on their offer and at least try using InDesign once. Afterall, it's free.
Re: Quark Jan 6
This points to how the timing of a survey can make it practically worthless. What were most of us wanting during the probable time of that survey? Were we even looking at OS X compatibility then? We probably WERE more interested having to repeat our design work as little as possible in applying it to the web as well as print- although we knew of the looming of OS X, it was not a concern during the development period any survey for Quark 5 may have been taking place- heck some of us were still probably busy trying to hammer our brand new G4s into submission to think about OS X. But by the time Quark five was actually ready, that climate had changed considerably, OS X compatibility was probably pushing MOST of our software purchases, and Quark seemed hopelessly out of touch in releasing 5 at that time, and probably spent too much effort trying to recoup their expected sales on 5, rather than on developing what people at that point WERE actually wanting.
Originally posted by hunter261
Quark have finished the version 6 beta. I have seen it. It is everything 5 should have been and comes with new tool bars and a very similar look to Photoshop 7.
It has been in final beta for some months now so I cannot see why it would be delayed. Don't forget they released 5 due to user reasearch on wanting 5 out at it''s scheduled release date rather than a wait on an OSX version which would have been out now but only around Oct this year. Talk to current version 5 users and ask if they would have wanted to wait until then
This points to how the timing of a survey can make it practically worthless. What were most of us wanting during the probable time of that survey? Were we even looking at OS X compatibility then? We probably WERE more interested having to repeat our design work as little as possible in applying it to the web as well as print- although we knew of the looming of OS X, it was not a concern during the development period any survey for Quark 5 may have been taking place- heck some of us were still probably busy trying to hammer our brand new G4s into submission to think about OS X. But by the time Quark five was actually ready, that climate had changed considerably, OS X compatibility was probably pushing MOST of our software purchases, and Quark seemed hopelessly out of touch in releasing 5 at that time, and probably spent too much effort trying to recoup their expected sales on 5, rather than on developing what people at that point WERE actually wanting.