Hello there: It seems everyone is swearing by In Design these days. I know the switch has to be made, but after using Quark for so long (on an LC way back when!), I am really resistant. For one thing, I have a real problem with all those windows! I like a clean screen; even in Photoshop and Illustrator it drives me crazy. Also, I do mostly textbooks, while most of the InDesign believers I've read seem to be graphic artists dealing in brochures, magazine ads, etc. How well does In Design handle large multipage files with many different elements? Any advice or encouragement would be appreciated.
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 vs Indesign
- Thread starter CathC
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
While I'm far from being a graphics pro (I'm an architect) I've been using InDesign a lot lately for little booklets of up to 20 pages. And for me it simply rocks. I thought it was great at handling text.
And adressing your issue w. lots of little windows and toolbars - press tab in any adobe application and they all vanish, leaving you with just the document and your keyboard-shortcuts. Tab again and they come back. I like that feature.
My, erhm, one cent...
A
And adressing your issue w. lots of little windows and toolbars - press tab in any adobe application and they all vanish, leaving you with just the document and your keyboard-shortcuts. Tab again and they come back. I like that feature.
My, erhm, one cent...
A
With specific regards to your last question, I recently finished up a directory of physicians for the hospital I work for. 106 page book, with many different styles and elements. InDesign handled it with flying colors. I got kudos from my client on how efficient the process was, and how well everything went and how well it turned out.
You're very right in saying that InDesign is menu heavy. This does take getting used to, but I've found that, not only have I grown accustomed to it, I actually prefer it to the just-as-prevalent pop-up boxes in Quark. Also, it helps if you dock all the palettes to the left and right edge of the screen, where they can "hide" when not in use.
One of the things I love most? The shortcut keys for the tools. If Quark has the ability to switch tools without going to the palette, they sure haven't made it obvious how to do so.
You're very right in saying that InDesign is menu heavy. This does take getting used to, but I've found that, not only have I grown accustomed to it, I actually prefer it to the just-as-prevalent pop-up boxes in Quark. Also, it helps if you dock all the palettes to the left and right edge of the screen, where they can "hide" when not in use.
One of the things I love most? The shortcut keys for the tools. If Quark has the ability to switch tools without going to the palette, they sure haven't made it obvious how to do so.
It's always good to know both...
I was still in school right in the middle of the transition from Quark to InDesign so I was lucky to be taught both programs; and if you know Quark, InDesign is a breeze to learn. I was actually against InDesign at first, but now I find myself using in more. Mostly because I do find it more efficient (and up to date) but also because of the fluidity with which it integrates other adobe programs (I know I know Monopoly Bad! but damn you Adobe stop making such good software!).
Plus, Indesign has some great plugins and add-ons (InBooklet SE!) that make my life much easier.
But - back to my main point - If you're a proQuark kinda guy (like I was) learn InDesign, but keep using Quark a lot of places still use it and swear buy it. It's a great skill to have.
I was still in school right in the middle of the transition from Quark to InDesign so I was lucky to be taught both programs; and if you know Quark, InDesign is a breeze to learn. I was actually against InDesign at first, but now I find myself using in more. Mostly because I do find it more efficient (and up to date) but also because of the fluidity with which it integrates other adobe programs (I know I know Monopoly Bad! but damn you Adobe stop making such good software!).
Plus, Indesign has some great plugins and add-ons (InBooklet SE!) that make my life much easier.
But - back to my main point - If you're a proQuark kinda guy (like I was) learn InDesign, but keep using Quark a lot of places still use it and swear buy it. It's a great skill to have.
Thanks all for the input. I've played with ID a few times (do have CS), and actually received a project from a client, which someone else did in ID, that she wanted me to "fix up." I wound up redoing the whole thing in Quark. Everyone keeps saying how great ID is, and I just can't seem to warm up to it. I actually come from "traditional" typesetting (no, I won't give my age!), and hate having to go to the mouse for anything; in Quark I use the keyboard probably 95% of the time. I also use even measurements (always picas/points; NEVER inches!) and math for precision placement; don't go "by eye." I realize it's possible to do these things in ID, it's just that I'm so comfortable in Quark, I go to ID and feel lost. I do intend to tackle it, though. So many people can't be wrong. Thanks again.
At my Old Uni all we used was quark and only quark. Now here they use inDesign. I like indesign a bit more, I find some things to be a bit easier. But that may just be that I did harder things in Quark than I have in in Design.
I am only a lightweight user at the moment and I've been using ID for a few months now and I have gotten to like it a lot compared to quark.
The plethora of palettes is a bit odd. They even have a palette called 'Story' that only contains a single checkbox! What's that all about then.
The plethora of palettes is a bit odd. They even have a palette called 'Story' that only contains a single checkbox! What's that all about then.
Attachments
InDesign all the way. You will not regret the switch, just do one project in InDesign. While I understand there are pros and cons to each program InDesign will win in the long run because of a single fact: IT IS WAAAYYYY CHEAPER! Who buys XPress for 2000 when he can get the whole Creative Suite for 1700 ?
While I agree with the above posters that InDesign in much easier to use and more up to date, Quark is still better at handling books. I know that the Master Theseses and Phd Dissertations at my school are done in Quark while all the other stuff is done in ID. As well the local book printers/publishers use mainly Quark.
I have both, and depending on the project I switch to one or the other, though leaning towards ID as time goes by.
I have both, and depending on the project I switch to one or the other, though leaning towards ID as time goes by.
I'm not a designer by any means, I'm a photographer.
Years ago I made an effort to learn the design software (Quark & Pagemaker) so that I would know what was going on with my images when I handed them over to a graphic artist and they would not be printed correctly.
Next thing I know one of my artist friends was asking me to help him with some simple layouts when he was swamped. This progressed to bigger and better jobs for us as a tag team. He did the layouts I did the photography and scans and image management. We both handled output and printing.
He took a university job, I took an I/S job (I'm now back in photo & video).
Fast forward to last summer, my Quark machine (8500 PM w/G3) was acting goofy. Deadlines loomed. It was easier & cheaper to switch to ID (AAAHHHGGG - on a PC) than update from Quark 4 (the 8500 was too slow and hardrives were full). ID opened my old Quark files with no problems and I had very few problems with the learning curve. I use PhotoShop alot and the ID interface is close enough that it was easy.
Now that I have a decent Mac to work with, I'll be updating the old PhotoShop 7 to CS2 or 3 if it comes out before this summer.
Now that Quark is updating their software the waters are going to be muddied up again, but not for me. I'm staying with InDesign.
Years ago I made an effort to learn the design software (Quark & Pagemaker) so that I would know what was going on with my images when I handed them over to a graphic artist and they would not be printed correctly.
Next thing I know one of my artist friends was asking me to help him with some simple layouts when he was swamped. This progressed to bigger and better jobs for us as a tag team. He did the layouts I did the photography and scans and image management. We both handled output and printing.
He took a university job, I took an I/S job (I'm now back in photo & video).
Fast forward to last summer, my Quark machine (8500 PM w/G3) was acting goofy. Deadlines loomed. It was easier & cheaper to switch to ID (AAAHHHGGG - on a PC) than update from Quark 4 (the 8500 was too slow and hardrives were full). ID opened my old Quark files with no problems and I had very few problems with the learning curve. I use PhotoShop alot and the ID interface is close enough that it was easy.
Now that I have a decent Mac to work with, I'll be updating the old PhotoShop 7 to CS2 or 3 if it comes out before this summer.
Now that Quark is updating their software the waters are going to be muddied up again, but not for me. I'm staying with InDesign.
I 'grew up' in the industry using Quark 3-4 and it was a good app, but now its just too dated. I switched to ID when I moved to OSX mainly because it was OSX native and I got the whole CS package for less than Quark on its own!
It took a while to get proficient with it to a level where I can now work much faster. One of the reasons is the way ID integrates with the other Adobe apps. This can save a load of time. I mainly do brochures so can't comment on huge text based docs, but I give it the thumbs up anyway.
Quark 7 will be interesting when it comes out, but by then Adobe will have made more improvements to ID anyways, and I'm never gonna fork out nearly a grand for any app
It took a while to get proficient with it to a level where I can now work much faster. One of the reasons is the way ID integrates with the other Adobe apps. This can save a load of time. I mainly do brochures so can't comment on huge text based docs, but I give it the thumbs up anyway.
Quark 7 will be interesting when it comes out, but by then Adobe will have made more improvements to ID anyways, and I'm never gonna fork out nearly a grand for any app
CathC said:
Superbly.
Let me make one thing absolutely clear. As well as spending a lot of time with the Quark 7 beta, I've been using Quark exclusively for page layout for the last 8-9 years, particularly for publications, and until recently swore by Xpress 6.5 as the tool for any designer worth their salt... until now.
We've been dabbling with InDesign for the past couple of months as time permits but last week, I went on an intensive full-time Adobe-certified 3-day InDesign CS2 course aimed particularly at those transitioning from Xpress.
To consolidate what I've learnt, I've also spent most of this weekend doing some freelance work in InDesign CS1 and it's lead me to this conclusion:
This is the future of page layout software. Anyone sticking solely with Quark for the next 2-3 years will be as useful as someone who only knows PageMaker today.
Let's put the eye-candy of drop-shadows and transparency to one side for a monent to consider the real tools for anyone involved in a publication:
Laughably superior table tool, beautiful type with paragraph composer, full open-type support, nested style-sheets with 'next' style, object styles, floating anchored objects, align with spine, story editor, dynamic-link updating... I could go on. Guides that work, locked items that stay locked, superior PDF handling, integral bleed and slug set-up...
Don't spend another penny on Quark unless you expect external collaborators to be sending you Xpress 7 files. Take that money and buy Creative Suite 3 when it's released and spend some of it on decent training and books. Not local college courses but Adobe-certified training I swear you will not regret it.
Spend an evening relearning your favorite keyboard shortcuts. But also enjoy drag-and-drop native file support from Version Cue without 1-bit clipping paths... within a couple of hours worth of structured training you'll be laughing at the sheer lameness of Quark and you'll also be wondering why you held out for so long... as I'm doing this week.
Good luck.
This is a good link for making the transition easier, only the first 3 groups are free mind but luckily it's all the basic stuff and their only a minute or two long at most:
http://www.vtc.com/products/indesigncs.htm
Tempted myself to pay and get the rest
http://www.vtc.com/products/indesigncs.htm
Tempted myself to pay and get the rest
Interesting. I'd picked up from many of your previous posts that you were a long-time Quark user BV, so I guess it's quite an endorsement that you have such a strong recommendation for ID now. Does your transition to ID have repercussions in terms of people outside your organisation that you work with?Blue Velvet said:... within a couple of hours worth of structured training you'll be laughing at the sheer lameness of Quark and you'll also be wondering why you held out for so long... as I'm doing this week.
dogbone said:
I just found out what that story box does here - http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?13@784.5eN2fZRn5pE.18@.3bbecd61/2
Pretty usefull tool now that I know what it does.
oh yeh forgot that you need a username to view the InDesign boards, this is what it does:
See how the quotation marks hang behind where the rest of the text lines up on the vertical axis, it does that with all punctuation.
That's what mine looked like without it checked:
Still a bit strange all by itself though aint it
dpaanlka said:
Could you elaborate this a little?
I am very interested in some feedback on Quark 7
I've used Quark 4, 5, and 6, and i've also used Indesign 2, CS, and CS2. As a graphic designer, nothing compares to the way InDesign works with the other Adobe Apps. I like the ability to copy a logo done in illustrator, and paste in into InDesign. This way it preserves the paths in indesign so you can change the color from there without having to open it back up in Illustrator. I like how CS2 allows you to pick which layers you want to use on multi-layer PSDs for quick changes without having to open the PSD back up and save copies to print them out and see them side by side. I like the fact that the keyboard shortcuts are PRETTY MUCH the same throughout all Adobe apps. Quark seems outdated, with few great features. Indesign has lots of great features (transparancy, drop shadows, layers, etc...) that really make it a lot easier to use. I also like the interface of InDesign better. To make a long story short, I dred he few times i have to go do something in Quark...i just don't like it.
My experience has been mixed. InDesign is a big step up in a lot of ways and has some tools to make beautiful text easy. The optical margin alignment and multiline justification save a lot of work. I don't know if Quark has implemented them yet.
Quark for a long time was infamous for not caring about the consumer. They outsourced to India and tech support improved! Their licensing is abysmal.
On the other hand Adobe has been becoming the same of late as well. Their products and willfully incompatible so there is the upgrade tax because you have to interoperate with everyone who picked this year to come up to date.
Quark has better applescript support and seems to handle importing formatted text better. InDesign is very picky about what it likes and what it doesn't.
They both suck. Quark feels more like a page layout program though and InDesign feels like well... Illustrator.
I am about *this* close to just writing my own.
Quark for a long time was infamous for not caring about the consumer. They outsourced to India and tech support improved! Their licensing is abysmal.
On the other hand Adobe has been becoming the same of late as well. Their products and willfully incompatible so there is the upgrade tax because you have to interoperate with everyone who picked this year to come up to date.
Quark has better applescript support and seems to handle importing formatted text better. InDesign is very picky about what it likes and what it doesn't.
They both suck. Quark feels more like a page layout program though and InDesign feels like well... Illustrator.
I am about *this* close to just writing my own.
It's open source, so i guess you can do what you please with it...
http://www.scribus.org.uk/
if you are a designer, you should also try out
http://www.inkscape.org/
http://www.gimp.org
http://www.scribus.org.uk/
if you are a designer, you should also try out
http://www.inkscape.org/
http://www.gimp.org
InDesign also feels slow on older machines.
Once Quark loads, its super fast. I like that. Especially the Q7 preview or beta or whatever it's called. Someone on campus has it and I played around with it for a little while.
I think Quark realized it has made some massive mistakes in the late 90s / early 2000s, and are going to really put a 110% effort into Quark 7.
I do like InDesign's friendliness to other Apps, but I'm starting to dislike Adobe lately for their massive attitude about everything. Like "we're number one, so we can do whatever we want and everybody has to listen." It's starting to feel more and more like a monopoly in the graphics and design area every day.
Adobe is fully capeable (spelling?) of making crap software as well. Anyone *remember* Adobe Premiere for Macintosh? Yeah...
Once Quark loads, its super fast. I like that. Especially the Q7 preview or beta or whatever it's called. Someone on campus has it and I played around with it for a little while.
I think Quark realized it has made some massive mistakes in the late 90s / early 2000s, and are going to really put a 110% effort into Quark 7.
I do like InDesign's friendliness to other Apps, but I'm starting to dislike Adobe lately for their massive attitude about everything. Like "we're number one, so we can do whatever we want and everybody has to listen." It's starting to feel more and more like a monopoly in the graphics and design area every day.
Adobe is fully capeable (spelling?) of making crap software as well. Anyone *remember* Adobe Premiere for Macintosh? Yeah...