Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Design and Graphics' started by methodine, Oct 17, 2005.
screenshots from Quark 7
Mind you, I remember being impressed with Quark 6 when it was first released and before I had to do a day's work with it.
It's not so much the feature-set that really intrigues me, although they're enough to pique my interest. It's whether they can turn out a stable product that doesn't have any hidden flaws, not bugs (although there's always been plenty of those), but crappy ill-thought-out add-ons that are little more than band-aids. i.e. the table tool.
What's the betting that this version will not enable you to save down to v5?
As soon as this is released as a demo, I will be putting it through its paces.
It's good to see Quark get off their butts and add some long overdue features. Some of these should have been in the program about 10 years ago. I guess they are finally looking at InDesign as a threat and may even be willing to improve the program. We will see.
Too little, too late!!!
InDesign all the way!!!
Quark, they still around? But really, it looks good.
Thank you for that completely irrelevant and inconsequential fart of a contribution.
Does this thread have anything at all to do with InDesign? No.
Are many of us using Quark (for whatever sound business reason) to get their job done? Yes.
Do I want to hear some pathetic ra-rahhing from somebody about InDesign when the topic is Quark 7. No.
That is all.
Oh great, another version to learn.
I stayed with Quark 4.1 for years before upgrading to 6, I think I'll stick with 6.5 for a little longer. Right now, it does what I need it to do, so I really don't want to waste time on learning all these other things that probably sound cool, but won't get any use out of me in the real working world.
Either way, I really do hope Quark finally makes a great program. I'd hate to see them get into an even worse position and fade away. Mostly because I've been using Quark for over 10 years.
This should be an interesting thread. Being new to this, and having only been exposed to Indesign + Adobe suites, I am curious to know what advantages (other than being the industry standard for such a long time), Quark has over Indesign. What features support Quark as a good alternative, especially in light of CS2's overall tight integration across multiple apps (for example, the ability to enable/disable comp/versions directly within Indesign without having to open up the original PSD file in Photoshop).
There probably are very few advantages that Quark possesses over InDesign apart from being the industry standard for so long.
There are a number of InDesign vs. QuarkXpress threads out there. Hell, there's even a website: http://quarkvsindesign.com/news/index.php
The main advantage to me is that I've spent years in this program and can make it do more or less what I want, efficiently and quickly using keyboard shortcuts that are so ingrained that I could probably do them in my sleep.
Our setup and workload at work is such that migrating to InDesign is a problematic affair for various reasons and it is this inertia, repeated across countless studios and publishers across the globe, that Quark is banking on to keep it in business. Also, having years worth of templates and libraries as Quark files just makes it even more headache-inducing to contemplate when all you see before you is a production schedule that stretches on for 18 months. All of our temps are also Quark users...
To be honest, it is my opinion that serious design professionals are less wooed by headline-grabbing features such as drop shadows than by overall stability and the ability to RIP/print/distil correctly. The features I'm more personally interested in relate more to typography so InDesign's paragraph composer is certainly an advance on Quark's antiquated H&J setup options.
On a cursory and entirely subjective level, I dislike InDesign's palette bloat and find its interface awkwardly Illustrator-like. Quark has a simplicity about its interface that I find appealing -- but that's just me. I also despise Quark to bits because of its price, bugginess, poorly implemented tools and poor support. Why they decided to spend countless R&D person-hours and money throwing it at virtually useless web design tools is completely beyond me...
One day, if I can get some serious time with InDesign and work my way up to a level of proficiency with it that enables me to create work as quickly and efficiently as I can using Quark, I will certainly contemplate switching or addding it to my armoury of production tools.
What irritates me though, is that any mention of Quark will usually bring some flippant comment out of the woodwork about InDesign. It adds nothing to the conversation at all and to me, is just akin to obnoxious trolling.
Furthermore, I suspect that many of these throwaway lines come from individuals who haven't been within an inch of a busy production environment and have little clue about the nature of transition involved for even the smallest studio.
Use the software tool that suits you and within which you can be creative and productive.
Um, of course someone sooner or later brings InDesign up when the topic is Quark and while the original commment was probably not very witty I think you're getting a little too upset about it.
Having said that and prefering InDesign much more than Quark because subjective and ergonomical reasons (why drop another 2000 on Quark when you can have the whole Creative Suite for that money) I understand why Quark will not disappear anytime soon. Many agencies and printers have worked with it for years and there are tons of data produced with this program. Another thing is that under almost constant time presure it is difficult for most designers to switch, although I believe it's not that hard as there are mostly nearly the same comands a little bit rearranged. It will be interesting to see how the industry proceeds in the future but I think with the recent fusion of Adobe and Macromedia Quark stands no chance in being up to date and staying competitive in the long run. As for Version 7 I hope there will be some kind of demo as it surely is interesting what will be improved and what will remain a time consuming pain of a workflow. For my own projects I only use InDesign but have to use XPress when freelancing for a certain agency.
Had to throw in my 2 cents.
Extremely irritated? Yes.
And you make good points about Quark and I'll eat both of my iPods if they do not release a Quark 7 demo. They absolutely have to engender some enthusiasm and awareness of this product beyond mere industry presentations and magazine reviews... besides, they released a Quark 6 demo so I can't see them changing their mind on this form of promotion.
They have so much goodwill to claw back they'll be absolutely desperate to get this in as many hands as possible. The absolute key point is: what's it going to cost?
I think that Quark changed something in his design interface, since the company was in a rebranding process few months ago.
I use Quark 6.1 daily, although I haven't upgraded to 6.5 yet. What initially grabs my attention is the comparison between Quark 7 and Quark 6. It almost seems like an anti-commercia for 6. That said, the screenshots look great. I like the changes to the measurement palette. I think the palette "family" tabs need some color to differentiate the specific palettes. I want to be able to easily click between palettes, not spend my time trying to decide which palette to bring to the front.
My 2 cents...
Yeah, but it's also not nice to still see those crappy antiquated type options on the Measurements palette. Quark's outlined (stroked) type should be taken out the back and given a good kicking...
I threw around the idea of switching to InDesign numerous times. In fact, out of all the people I know in the field, I am the only one who uses Quark. Most of them said it would be very easy to switch, they said I could use the same keyboard commands as Quark and even convert my current Quark documents easily.
Sounded good, but it wasn't the case. I worked with InDesgn for a week and it was just frustrating. Quark isn't perfect, but I feel comfortable with it. It really all comes down to personal preference. I don't see the need to have Quark vs. InDesign debates because most printers prefer PDF files, so as long as you can rip a PDF file according to the printer's standards, then all is well.
Quark has always been one of the apps that caused me frustration each time i had to use it, maybe it was because i would use other apps like Freehand the same time and say how limited it was and how many things i couldn't do on it! Not to mention how the ugly interface and the crashing!!
But now am happy to see they are getting serious about it, those screenshots look good! How about the performance? Last i used was Quark 4.1 and it was quicker and more responsive than inDesign. But never got the chance to use newer versions.
Quite often I'm designing work and putting it in a layout program before the end vendor is decided on. All of them understand Quark but not all of them understand InDesign. To save myself headaches I stay with Quark and only use InDesign for my own work. I think having a program like InDesign out there is a very good thing, it keeps Quark on it's toes. For many years Quark did not have any real competitor and they got very lazy about improving the program. On the surface those screenshots tell me that they feel the pressure from InDesign and are willing to look at new things. What we may end with is a better Quark. Competition is a good thing.
Actually, all those styling options should just be eliminated. If you don't have an italic or bold version of the font, DON'T use it! Simple as that!
And the underline option should be editable. The line is too close to the letter. Does anybody use actually shadow?
Absolutely correct and on the nail -- I couldn't be bothered to condem all of the options because they're universally poor and remind me of college newsletters circa 1990. I never, absolutely never, use underlined text -- typographic abomination.
Yes, I have needed shadowed type from time to time. If you want clean Postscript type with a soft shadow you have to go back and forth between PS and Quark to get it to match up. This new feature could save quite a bit of time.
I saw Quark's booth and sat through one of their demonstrations at Print '05 in Chicago last month - with the new logo, they are really trying to remake the image of Quark. It was fun to hear the sales people say that they (Quark) really dropped the ball for a few years. There are some neat things with Quark 7 that generated some oohs and aahs from the crowd, like dynamic updating for linked files and transparency. One of the things I noticed on their booth graphics was the statement "Unparalleled Photoshop compatibility." Interesting that they would claim that they work better with Photoshop than Adobe's own InDesign. I like Quark, and hope they can kick-start their new image by delivering a fresh, timely, well-updated product in Quark 7, and keep the innovations coming over the next few years.