QuarkXpress vs InDesign

Kick back on the couch and discuss all things not directly related to QuarkXPress.
User avatar
eyoungren
Posts: 3259
Joined: 27 May 2004, 16:08
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Contact:

QuarkXpress vs InDesign

Post by eyoungren » 22 Jun 2012, 07:42

Emma. In Preferences somewhere (forget right now) is the option "Auto Collapse to Panels" (or some similar name). Check that option. Now, whenever you call up a panel with a shortcut, once you hit enter the panel collapses back. You have the panel minimized to the icons I believe, or at least to the small bar thing.

shaharaperil
Posts: 54
Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 22:27

QuarkXpress vs InDesign

Post by shaharaperil » 26 Jun 2012, 06:25

Antonia62 wrote:I have recently been forced (by clients I feel are somewhat out-of-touch with Quark) to switch to InDesign. Although I'm getting along OK with it (most of the main functions replicate Quark's), I HATE it. It has the most irritating features and, so far, I haven't found one thing it does that Quark doesn't, albeit sometimes quite differently. .... Here's what I think has happened. When Adobe came out with ID, hoardes of Quark users moved over as ID probably had a few more features and maybe a lot more. But this was way back when. Once they were into ID, they never returned to Quark and so assume it "ended" with the version where they switched. They haven't seen how far Quark has come and how much more efficient it is.


A lot of people also switched to ID because they figured they were "getting it for free" with Creative Suite and didn't want the added expense of buying a second program. It was smart marketing on Adobe's part. But that was back when Creative Suite cost the same amount as a full version of Quark. It's a lot more expensive now and I personally don't see the value in upgrading it. I rarely ever use Illustrator...maybe 2 or 3 times a year. I've gotten one ID job in the last year and couldn't open it, so I just wound up recreating it in Quark. And, even though I have Photoshop CS3 and CS5, there's nothing I ever need to do in Photoshop that I can't do just as quickly in my original Photoshop CS, so I just use that instead. Using CS5 for me is like using an anvil to beat in a nail when a hammer is really all I need.

Allow me to get personal here for a moment... it drives me nuts when people say they need to upgrade their CS because the new one is "faster." It may very well be faster. But, in my experience, the problem is that THEY are not faster. No advances in the program are going to turn a slow poke worker into a guru of speed and efficiency. I've seen people who only finish 2 jobs a day use the "it will make me faster" excuse to get new programs and faster computers and guess what? After all the upgrades, they STILL could only finish 2 jobs a day. So the problem was NOT the tools. It was the people.

And I think the same is true for the whole Quark versus InDesign debate. They are just tools and whether you like one better or find one to be more efficient will depend more on the person and what they prefer, rather than any features or real efficiencies in the programs themselves, in most cases. I know how to use Quark, I like using Quark, it does everything I need it to do, and it works for me more times than not. So, for me, there's no benefit or efficiency in moving toward a different program and having to spend time re-learning how to do something I already know how to do in Quark. I would rather invest that time learning a program that does something completely different than what Quark can do... like 3D animation or database design.

I have ID and I think it makes sense to know how to use it incase I ever need it. But I haven't needed it and I think it's a mistake for people to suggest I would love it more than Quark because people are different and have different tastes and needs. There's no way they could ever know what I would love when it comes to graphic design programs.

Antonia62
Posts: 35
Joined: 07 Dec 2009, 16:54

QuarkXpress vs InDesign

Post by Antonia62 » 26 Jun 2012, 07:31

Very well saidand [:D] to your "...like using an anvil to beat in a nail..." Here's one good thing I am finding about having to learn ID: I'll watch something on Lynda, do it in ID, then wonder if this is a feature I have overlooked on Quark. I go to Quark and, guess what! It is.Trying to figure how to do a duotonelinear blend last night and then reduce the opacity was a joyous experience indeed. I went through lord-knows-how-many steps to achieve what is easily done in three or so in Quark. Another positive: Learning something new reduces the risk for Alzheimer's (but beating one's head against the wall in frustration is likely to increase it).
Your point about in the end it is choosing what tools best suit you, is spot on, and it is indeed a good thing to be able to function in both. Back to the torture...

Emma
Posts: 657
Joined: 07 Jul 2004, 08:43

QuarkXpress vs InDesign

Post by Emma » 26 Jun 2012, 07:39

Big 'like' to both the above posts.

Whatever the merits of the 2 applications, this forum is so much nicer than the Adobe one, where I am always afraid to ask questions.

Never make the mistake of using an expression like 'text box' over there, or you'll get flamed!

Antonia62
Posts: 35
Joined: 07 Dec 2009, 16:54

QuarkXpress vs InDesign

Post by Antonia62 » 26 Jun 2012, 07:52

...or, someone will come on and say, "...Jill, clearly you need to work through the tutorials as the questions you are asking are very basic..." I have seen this happen twice to two people seeking help. It is most unhelpful and designed to belittle as opposed to assist.

dannykos
Posts: 13
Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 19:48

QuarkXpress vs InDesign

Post by dannykos » 26 Jun 2012, 22:16

I've been dabbling - incase I ever change jobs or whatever.I have to say it's a total nightmare! I've set my pallets down the right hand side, like I have in quark - but if I ever need to do text wrap for instance, once I've finished, the pallet remains, and I have to then go and reset the workspace, to get things back to how they were!?Also - why are the keyboard shortcuts for very commonly used things not just command-letter, whereas most of them seem to be command+alt or shift + letter. Really hard to remember.There are a few awesome features which I wish quark had - but the con's definitely outweigh the pro's for me.

User avatar
eyoungren
Posts: 3259
Joined: 27 May 2004, 16:08
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Contact:

QuarkXpress vs InDesign

Post by eyoungren » 27 Jun 2012, 04:03

In your preferences, set your palettes to Auto Collapse. That will replicate the behavior of XPress dialogues. If you reduce the panels to icons it's even better.
Under Edit>Keyboard Shortcuts you can change to QuarkXPress shortcuts. That replicates the bare minimum shortcuts for QuarkXPress 4. Which of course is not good enough. Go in and edit them further (yes, you can make your own shortcuts) and save a new set.
What I am doing (as I go) is changing shortcuts to what they are in XPress, or if there is not an exact match as close as I can.
For instance, one of the annoying things of ID I have found is that if you have the text tool selected you have to go through a multi-keystroke process so that you switch to a selection tool just to modify the dimensions of the text frame. ID's standard shortcut to focus on the control palette is CMD+6. I have changed that to be CMD+M. I changed the Transform Palette to CMD+OPTN+M which allows me to modify the dimensions of the text frame when I am using the Text tool to edit text. Both CMD+M and CMD+OPTN+M correspond (approximately) to the Modify dialoguge box and the keystroke that take yous to the editing boxes in the info panel in XPress. Now that I am typing this though I see a slight change I need to make to make this more like XPress.

rafikibubu
Posts: 5
Joined: 27 Mar 2013, 15:46

QuarkXpress vs InDesign

Post by rafikibubu » 27 Mar 2013, 14:17

Antonia62 wrote:I have recently been forced (by clients I feel are somewhat out-of-touch with Quark) to switch to InDesign. Although I'm getting along OK with it (most of the main functions replicate Quark's), I HATE it. It has the most irritating features and, so far, I haven't found one thing it does that Quark doesn't, albeit sometimes quite differently. Quark is faster at "getting there" and way more efficient IMO. Here's what I think has happened. When Adobe came out with ID, hoardes of Quark users moved over as ID probably had a few more features and maybe a lot more. But this was way back when. Once they were into ID, they never returned to Quark and so assume it "ended" with the version where they switched. They haven't seen how far Quark has come and how much more efficient it is. Hence the remarks that Quark is "old technology" and "If you've been using Quark, you'll LOVE InDesign!" Well, I don't. Period. Everything from text linking to simply changing the text colour is irritatingly slow and drives me crazy. Boxes show up all over the place when I never asked them to. I bring a box to the front and still can't type in it unless I do something else. Ugh! UGH! Emma, I fully empathize with, "Isuppose I could find out but I just don't have the time..." Image Have a great w/e

I actually have had quite the opposite experience. I was forced to goto Quark at a new workplace, after using InDesign for about 7 years. I always make an effort to be unbiased, so here goes.

I agree that tools are tools ... and often, sadly, no upgrade of software will turn slow workers into fast works.

However, in my experience, the feature set of InDesign most certainly allows users who are already fast/efficient workers to accomplish more, faster.

My current workplace has used Quark for decades. My own personal experience with publishing began with InDesign, having only shifted to Quark due to my current work environment. In that time, I've tried my best to remain open to the usage of Quark. A year later, I can't emphasize enough how much more can be accomplished following a switch to InDesign.

In my opinion, the folks behind Quark would do well to research and rethink the needs of the user quite a bit more. According to what I've read, Quark has often been praised for doing this in the past ... I find it hard to believe this could possibly still be the case.

Very true ... InDesign took over the market due to a very clever marketing/packaging move by Adobe. However, Adobe has kept it's converted users by keeping InDesign ahead of the curve. Especially for more advanced users, and busy designers who need to get alot done with very little time.

If you have yet to discover areas where InDesign might work better for you than Quark, I highly suggest you check out the tutorials at Lynda.com to gain some more insight. I really think you might be surprised.

Here are some the areas I've found tremendous differences.




Consider the following:


----- No eyedropper tool in Quark.

In Quark, there's a meager ability to Alt-Shift-Click type that's in the same text box in order to "grab it" to another bunch of selected text. That's it. Only text in the same box.

InDesign's eyedropper tool will copy a style/color/attribute from just about anywhere in your document. It will grab stroke settings, type styles, colors, effects ... anything if you want it. What's more, this tool can be temporarily customized so as to only grab the attributes you want/need at the moment.

This tool alone, used well, can make a considerable difference in working comfort for even the most novice of users.



------ Conditional Styles in Quark - Almost useless in comparison to InDesign's nested styles.


At first glance, it's easy to believe that InDesign's "nested styles" and Quark's "conditional styles" are the same thing, with different names. If only that were so ... I wouldn't have been pulling my hair out for the past year using Quark.

Quark's conditional styles are a whole, separate set of styles, whereas InDesign has its nested styles as part of paragraph styles. Quark's solution may seem more sensible, until you stop and think about the usage.

If you want to say, make a style for a Q & A, where Q: and A: will receive a separate treatment (bolded, bigger and different face) ... in Quark, you'll have to set up both the paragraph style, and then conditional style for both Q: and A:. Then, separately you'll have to go and manually apply the conditional styles where applicable.

Since InDesign has this "conditional" style feature as part of the paragraph style, with InDesign the paragraph style itself will always be looking out for any instance f Q: or A: at the start of a paragraph, applying the conditional style automatically when these items occur. No need to apply the paragraph style and THEN the conditional style. With books that span many, many pages ... this, which seems to be a minor difference, has a TREMENDOUS impact on how much time it takes to accomplish the same task.What's more, nested styles have been around since at least CS3 with InDesign ... whereas I believe conditional styles were a recent, new feature with Quark 9. On this, Quark is late to the game, and still behind.------ Applying Text Wrap/Styles to groups of objectsIn Quark, if I have a series of text boxes on my page and I'd like to apply the same text wrap to all of them, and apply the same paragraph style to them, I'm going to have to apply these all one by one. Yet, you can select them all and put the same stroke on them. This isn't an issue with InDesign. Just about all attributes with InDesign can be applied to any objects which are selected.------ Paragraph ComposerThe usage of this feature is not always preferred, depending on your needs. But when needed, having the option of using InDesign's paragraph composer can be very helpful.You're using Quark ... say your editor says he wants a word forced to the next line in a paragraph. You go in, put in a forced line break, and done. The word moves to the next line, but now, the preceding line looks empty (or spacey if you're using justified text). To fix it, you have to go to the line before, and force another word to the next line, and maybe even another before that. This drives me to drink.This is what a "line composer" feature will do ... adjust spacing of text in a paragraph, line by line. In Quark, this is the only option. With InDesign, you have a second choice ... the paragraph composer.With the paragraph composer selected, the program will always respace your type in the whole paragraph, based on what's going on. So that one line break won't mess up the spacing in the last line. Once you've placed the line break, paragraph composer with readjust ALL the lines in the paragraph if it needs to, to keep the whole thing looking correct.Now, if you're working on a flush-left project where you've very carefully gone through, controlling your rag ... paragraph composer will also drive you to drink. You do have a choice however, and in this instance, I've sure you would much prefer using the "line composer" option.And that's the point. InDesign gives you options in this area ... Quark, sadly, does not.------ Stroke controlInDesign offers far more ability to control strokes on objects. Especially with text. In Quark, the only way one can stroke text seems to be outlining it, and then applying the stroke. And if you want to control the which side of the path the stroke is on, that isn't possible (stroke in the inside of the path, outside, or centered). Strokes are also part of the color of an object with InDesign. I'm sure this seems strange to avid Quark users, but this simply gives the user a much easier time accessing and controlling the stroke of an object from multiple areas (the toolbar, the color palette, the swatches palette).In this area, InDesign offers much more control.------ EffectsYet another area where InDesign has been ahead for a while now, and Quark still is far behind.Drop shadows, layer effects, etc ... there are numerous options for effects on objects in InDesign, where Quark offers very little. Quark does have drop shadow, but the controls are very limited in comparison, and it's also very buggy. Many times as I'm working with drop shadows in Quark, the drop shadow will suddenly appear over my object (fixed by sending the object to front).Do I use effects all over the place in my designs? Absolutely not. But do I want them there if I choose to use them? Absolutely. What's more, InDesign gives lots of control over these features, so that they can be used in ways that work for me, and my needs.------ Find/ChangeIn Quark, the areas where this control is lacking compared to InDesign drives me crazy, and it's on many levels.For one, you can search the whole layout, or the select text frame. THAT'S IT. If you select all the text in the text frame, and do a find/change, it won't work. What if I only want to do a find/change to a certain section of text in a large text box? Can't be done.None of this is an issue with InDesign, and it's been that way almost from the beginning.Also, Quark offers one, generic wildcard character ... \?. No "any digit" wildcard ... no "any letter character" wildcard ... etc.And for advanced users of these programs, this brings up one of the most powerful features for Indesign ...------ GREPIf you work with large documents, learning and using GREP styles and GREP find/changes with InDesign is a lifesaver. HOURS upon HOURS of work could be saved if you utilize GREP features with InDesign. I can personally tell you this has saved tons of work for me over the last couple of years, and yet I still consider myself a novice with GREP.For those who aren't aware, GREP is a particular language that lets you search for or define patterns in text. For example, an email has the pattern of xxxx@xxxx.com. Money has a pattern of ## dollars, or $##.##. If you need to change all the various names in a list from, for example, "John Smith" to "J. Smith" ... there's nothing you can do in Quark short of changing them all by hand. Learning GREP and using it with a find/change in InDesign will accomplish the entire task in seconds. If your list had a thousand names, I'm sure you can appreciate how amazing such a thing can be.You can even use "GREP styles" with InDesign, an advanced form of nested styles, which can be added to any paragraph style. If you want any and all email address to automatically underline and display in italics in your body copy, a well-written GREP style will take care of this for you, dynamically as you type.You can even define GREP styles that will actually automatically remove widows in your text. I can tell you, the day I discovered this fact is the day my weekly case layouts started taking about two hours less every week.----------------------I could go on. But the point is, I've used both programs extensively.And I'm not trying to sell InDesign here. Really. It's just I've had the opportunity to use both to the point where I KNOW the differences.I tried to be open to Quark, thinking of it simply as a different tool to carry out my work. In the end, I can safely and without bias conclude that InDesign is a better, more efficient tool ... IF you do take the time to learn how to use it, and all that it offers. I can't recommend the Lynda.com tutorials enough for this.In one of my first jobs, a very wise coworker once told me ... "working fast is working smart." Sadly, I was too dumb at the time to understand what he was trying to tell me. I never forgot those words, and looking back (especially now) I know that was one of the most intelligent sayings ever uttered to me.No matter what program you choose to use, you need to find any and all ways to make that program work for you. So when it comes down to it ... InDesign works smarter, and when I'm using it, so do I.

User avatar
eyoungren
Posts: 3259
Joined: 27 May 2004, 16:08
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Contact:

QuarkXpress vs InDesign

Post by eyoungren » 30 Mar 2013, 10:54

I've been working in InDesign CS4 for about two years now. It took a while to get up to speed. A lot of bugging my friends and a lot of Google searching. We probably do different things because some of what you cite isn't important to what I do. For instance, I don't need Paragraph Composer when dealing with 1 page ads for newspapers. I do however, use the Find/Change box extensively when it comes to formatting our legals and classifieds. That's something that took me a while to get used to as in Quark you don't really use the Find box to apply text formatting.
There are still some things I believe XPress to be better on. The Usage box for example. I can bring up the Usage box, switch a font and go - all while using the keyboard. With the Find Font box in ID, at least once I have to take my hands off the keyboard and use the mouse to press a button. Why does ID keep it's Attributes options in a completely separate panel? That's something that should be check boxes in some other panel dealing with the image or text frame.
You've cited some good examples and I agree that ID does things better in those areas. Although you may want to look at your Stylesheets. There is an option in XPress to apply the next style in the next paragraph. You can specify which style is applied. With your example, the Question style can specify that the next style would be Answer and the Answer style can specify that the next style would be Question. I've always hated this feature in XPress (been there since version 4.x at least) because I never used it and it got in the way, but it's there.
But I think it also comes down to how we use our tools. It seems you use XPress for books, or long documents full of text you need to format. ID is better at this. But a lot of my work is ad design. Not much of what you cite is helpful at all to me when designing ads. With the exception of effects and stroke of course. I have long lambasted Quark for InDesign being able to apply stroke and fill while XPress is still stuck in the stone age of Text to Box! Quark didn't even have the ability to export EPS files with embedded fonts until version 7.x. And they are on version 9.x now and still cannot do stroke/fill on type and still have it be editable. I've also found in using ID that I am now mainly importing PSD files for images because ID has no problem with the transparency (still have to make TIF files to be able to color grayscale images though).
With those few exceptions though, I still feel that XPress is a much better tool for ad design. However, my goal two years ago was to get paid experience in using ID. Since my boss does not care HOW the work is done, just that it IS, he didn't care that I switched.
I will say this, my hatred of ID is gone. I actually like some aspects of it now, but I do still hate the panel happy interface. But I still don't love it like XPress. Hence my constant futzing with XPress shortcuts to make them as similar to XPress as I can.

rafikibubu
Posts: 5
Joined: 27 Mar 2013, 15:46

QuarkXpress vs InDesign

Post by rafikibubu » 31 Mar 2013, 07:02

Right on ... excellent points.

And yes, I do often use InDesign (or prefer anyway) for long documents and books. At my last company, I worked every week on long listings (average of 48 newspages, another that was about 100 letter-size pages) of real estate transactions. Now at my current job, we deal with long lists of legal opinions from the courts. So for me, I guess I'm always on the lookout for time-savings, and eliminating the possibly of error. Lots of newspapers and magazines ... and mainly on the editorial end of things, though I do ads too as needed.

I think it's fair comment that with smaller projects, it kind of doesn't matter all that much. Comfort is comfort, and again, tools are tools.

One thing I'll say that I do like about Quark ... well two actually ...

For one, having the ALT key be the shortcut key for moving around the page (hand tool). It's such a simple difference, but it helps when you're working with type. InDesign of course, uses the space bar.

The advantage to the Quark ALT key solution is that if I'm typing in text in one spot, and want to move to another spot, I can simply hold ALT, move as I'd like, and then resume typing. With InDesign, you can't just hit the spacebar as you're typing, since of course, it'll just put i spaces! You have to hit ESC to get out of the text frame, THEN space bar over to where you want to go. Not only does that take more time, you can very easily put in erroneous spaces by mistake.

And I also quite like the keyboard shortcuts by default in Quark for leading and tracking. You can increase/decrease in Quark by tiny increments by holding down an extra key or two (shift? alt? I'm not in front of my mac at the moment). With InDesign, nudging an object around works this way, which is nice. But with text, holding down extra keys for leading or tracking will INCREASE the degree of the change, not the other way around. This forces you to have to go into prefs and change the deault amounts. Quark's, in this regard, ends up being a more simple, and helpful solution.

As to the usage panel in Quark, I never thought about it that way when it comes to fonts. That's nifty. However, I dunno if you know, but I think, as of InDesign 5.5 and up, if you open a package sent by someone, if needed, InDesign will use the font files IN THE PACKAGE, temporarily ... which I have to say, helps to cut down a HUGE hassle that is otherwise the norm.

The usage panel in Quark to me has it's failings with the pictures area, which is handled by the Links palette in InDesign. Many times I like to try and do cutouts with images. With InDesign, I simply duplicate the uncut photo in my layout, and then relink only that picture frame to the new, cut out section. After a long time, I found a similar way to do the same in Quark, but I have to go through many more hoops, since Usage won't let you relink only one instance of a link.

Maybe it's just comfort for me, but in working with ads ... I took the time to set up an ad frame work with InDesign, and ever since then, I definitely much prefer using InDesign for my ads and classifieds. There are a number of GREP find/changes that I use regularly, and keep saved as queries, or jotted down on notes.

Styles are big for me ... and my ad template has two sets of typeface styles sets ... as I call them ... a serif and a sans. Each set has a preset style for body, body bullet, breaker hed, subhed and large hed, and a few others ... and each set has the body copy set as the base for all the rest.

Since I try to change the type faces as much as possible for each ad (I don't want them all the same, and neither do clients), all I have to do is choose a new serif and sans when I start the ad. I change the body serif and body sans as needed, and then I'm off and running. Since body is the basis for all other styles, that one change is all that's needed. And of course down the line, if the client ends up wanting another typeface from what I've chosen, I just change the body style, and the whole ad is instantly fixed and ready to go again.

I'm pretty sure you can do "based on style" with Quark styles too ... I just haven't used it as much in there.

Also again .. with GREP styles (which CS4 supports btw), I have that magic little GREP style defined in my base body styles that automatically eliminates widows. Saves lots of time, since that's built into my template.

I'll look at the "next paragraph" feature a little more, thanks. InDesign has that as well ... though I still would much appreciate if Quark would make "conditional styles" into attributes of the paragraph style. Would make the feature alot more useful. I think "next paragraph" might help, but if you have an answer than's long, and more than one paragraph, it seems to me like you'd have to manually shut off the conditional style.

And no that I think of it ... the "panel happy interface" comment is well stated. Though my solution has been to use two screens at the office, and the primary use for the second for me is to hold all of my most common panels. Expensive solution, but I'm not going back now.The newer versions of InDesign have moved away from that issue a bit, in that the panels are collapsible for when they're not in use. But I'm so used to having them there on the other screen, I avoid the new way. But that might be something you'd enjoy. Also, for style applying with InDesign, look into Quick Apply sometime if you haven't already. Cmd-Return I believe ... it brings up a spotlight box or sorts, start typing the name of the style you want, and it comes right up. If you do it again, it remembers the last one you chose, unless to start a new one. Helps me alot in chosing styles I use infrequently, but still want to access when I need them.Cheers!

Post Reply

Return to “Sofa Threads”