Pfeiffer Consulting recently released a Technology Analysis and Strategy Outlook report on QuarkXpress and InDesign. The analyst compared QuarkXpress 6 with InDesign CS, and also had a first look at QuarkXpress 6.5. Not only were both applications compared with each other, but Pfeiffer also analysed what both are lacking in terms of functionality to support a workflow in an optimal manner.
Pfeiffer Consulting recently released a Technology Analysis and Strategy Outlook report on QuarkXpress and InDesign. The analyst compared QuarkXpress 6 with InDesign CS, and also had a first look at QuarkXpress 6.5. Not only were both applications compared with each other, but Pfeiffer also analysed what both are lacking in terms of functionality to support a workflow in an optimal manner.
Pfeiffer starts the report with the assessment that companies these days have little or no choice: it’s change or change. Sticking with QuarkXpress but upgrading to the latest version means upgrading to Mac OS X at least. Migrating to InDesign means upgrading to Mac OS X and learning a whole new layout program.
Pfeiffer states a new product is not inherently “good” as the changes must serve a purpose: improve workflow and/or productivity. So, the report boils down to the ultimate question: given the purpose of improving workflow, productivity or layout and creative capabilities, and being a QuarkXpress user, must you change to InDesign CS, and if so, why.
Pfeiffer starts its analysis with a technical overview of both programs. This quickly reveals that QuarkXpress makes it harder to work cross-platform because it relies on the operating system whereas Adobe has developed its own cross-platform common graphics architecture, Adobe Graphics Manager. This makes sure the results of creative input that you see on your screen are the same regardless of the OS that controls that screen.
There are yet other technical areas where InDesign shines in comparison with QuarkXpress, although the report does mention some Quark-only features that make the program somewhat easier to use than InDesign. The uncluttered interface, for example, and an auto-save option. The latter is no luxury with Xpress, as Pfeiffer reports frequent crashes with Quark’s version 6 product.
Design Power
Pfeiffer found that InDesign CS offers a lot more power in terms of design functionality than QuarkXpress does. But Pfeiffer also points out that the main question is which tool is more appropriate for the job at hand, and concludes some publications will not fully benefit from the design potential InDesign has to offer. Personally, I always think you can’t ever get enough power, and so my natural reflexes are to always go for overkill, but I seldom have to pay for that overkill as a reviewer. It’s natural that design firms think about this differently.
50% off for a limited time only.
Sign up now!
- A Monthly Newsletter with unique content not found anywhere else
- Selected Product Reports
- 25% off the Reports in the Research Store 50% off for a limited time only | claim your coupon!
- Advice, Analyses & Multimedia Tutorials on Graphic Design, Photography, Video-editing, and Publishing Systems
- The best content on cross-channel publishing on the web
Nevertheless, if an art director ever rethinks the document structure from the ground up, it pays off to have that power readily available. This is also what the Pfeiffer report says. The analyst walks through almost all design features of both programs, indicating where both differ and why one is preferable over the other.
In the area of page management, both applications lack functionality, according to Pfeiffer. This is also the case in the area of document management.
One aspect where InDesign outperforms QuarkXpress so much that it becomes shameful, is typography and composition. Pfeiffer points out that many conservative designers think of typography as a nice to have feature, while a more capable composition engine can have a direct impact on overall throughput, even in environments which do not need all the refinements InDesign CS can offer.
Hype
Pfeiffer also examined both programs’ capabilities in the area of document management and import and export of file formats.
The conclusion is that QuarkXpres again lags behind InDesign CS, but Adobe shouldn’t shout too much about its XML capabilities and image format support either. For example, Pfeiffer believes JPEG 2000 should be supported, and an XML workflow is still a beautiful dream.
Even the creation of web pages, which both vendors claim to support, is a half-heartedly implemented.
Both programs have their limitations, despite their vendors shouting feature completeness of the roof tops. Pfeiffer identifies limitations in terms of document support, imposition, imposition of multi-page spreads, long document support, tables, typography, and grids and guides.
Stay Away from QuarkXpress 6.5
Pfeiffer analysed Xpress 6.5 and found serious flaws. QuarkXpress 6.5 contains 3 major components not previously available: QuarkVista for image manipulation on placed raster images, PSD import, an extension based on technology developed by ALAP which will allow placement of native Photoshop files with support for layers and alpha channels, and QuarkXclusive, a tool for variable data creation and printing.
Pfeiffer reports that the PSD import extension was not included with the initial download, while QuarkXclusive was only available as a separate download.
Again, Pfeiffer found frequent and reproducible crashes, and serious reproducible dysfunctions of existing product functionality. The problems were so severe that a system’s data integrity was in peril. Pfeiffer therefore warns against deploying version 6.5 without checking if Quark has solved the problems found by Pfeiffer.
Conclusion
Pfeiffer’s report offers an elaborate and comprehensive advice for deploying QuarkXpress or InDesign CS, based on various organisation types’ requirements. To get to know Pfeiffer’s advice, you can buy the report at Pfeiffer’s web site for 295.00 Euros. The report is available as an electronic download or a paper version.
No
