Alistair Dabbs, editor of Layout has kindly pointed out that we made two mistakes in the QuarkXPress 7 versus InDesign CS3 report. Lacking a technical editor is not always a good idea, so we are publishing this addendum with our sincere apologies to Adobe for these two errors. Layout also seems to imply that we have been using beta software --we can assure our readers this has not been the case. In fact, the two errors we made were a direct result of not having done what we did for the rest of the report: re-test with the release version of Indesign everything we had already been testing with the beta.

The first mistake is about the XTensions sets in QuarkXPress and the plug-ins in InDesign CS3. We reported that InDesign’s plug-ins should always be on unless you drag plug-ins out of the folder in the Finder. We reported that an equivalent for the XTensions Manager in QuarkXPress does not exist. This is wrong. In InDesign CS3, when selecting “Plug-in Configuration” from the Application menu, enables users to save the default plug-ins as a duplicate set. The user can then call this set whatever he likes, and turn on/off plug-ins as required.

The second error on our part is not entirely our fault: for the first tests we had to use a beta version of InDesign CS3 as Adobe refused to send a Not For Resale license after having read our critical article on Creative Suite 3 in general and the nudging dialogue in the beta didn’t work properly on the system. For some reason, when we typed anything else but 0.10 points, the system reverted this back to 0.10 points. We should have known better, and at least re-test this part when we finally came into possession of the release version of InDesign CS3. InDesign CS3 does allow nudging to less than 0.10 points.

Layout also pointed us to other issues they did not agree with. However, we stand by our conclusions on all other issues. Below are our answers to Layout’s remarks. 

PAGE 9: The report says that if Acrobat advises that you have made a mistake when creating a PDF from InDesign CS3, the only way to correct this is to go back to InDesign. But if you’re already in Acrobat, you can apply Fix-Ups. If the test allows the use of Acrobat for preflighting, then it should use the program appropriately.

I believe this is a matter of personal choice. Do you want a pre-press guy to change the fonts you wanted to use, etc? The wording is perhaps a bit strong in the report to say “the only way” but otherwise this is in my opinion, not a mistake.

PAGE 11: The report reveals a “serious colour-related problem” in InDesign CS3 in which a Pantone spot ink was not converted to the same CMYK values as produced by QuarkXPress 7. However, Pantone’s Solid Coated and Bridge libraries are not concurrent: the Bridge libraries are more recent and are known to contain different built-in CMYK values than the old libraries. Also, we question the unchallenged assumption that the QuarkXPress 7 Pantone conversion values are necessarily the correct ones by which all other programs should be judged.

When I get this sort of comment from a local befriended printer who prints for companies across Europe, and who also prints art books, I’m inclined to believe him --he uses both IDCS3 and QXP7. This remark in the report therefore was not based on my own testing but on the experience of a professional printer. I offered to quote him but he declined because he doesn’t want any trouble with either developer. So I took the risk and added it to the report given the importance of the problem.

PAGE 27: This test compares QuarkXPress 7’s built-in Picture Effects with InDesign’s need to enhance pictures externally using Photoshop. The problem is that although Picture Effects are convenient, their inaccurate on-screen previews make them virtually unusable in image-critical workflows, so the emphasis given to this test seems disproportionate.

I didn’t have a problem with QXP7’s on-screen previews, I’m afraid…

PAGE 28: The runaround test bizarrely involved preparing an alpha mask in a PNG file separate from the main image file, and then fiddling around afterwards trying to re-incorporate the mask back into the main image using Photoshop while the stopwatch was running. This workflow doesn’t make any sense, and effectively sabotaged InDesign’s speed-test result from the outset. The report also appears to use the terms ‘mask’ and ‘path’ interchangably, yet they are completely different things.

This workflow does make much sense if the image that is given to you looks like the one I tested with. I don’t think Adobe or Quark should assume that images will come with the mask incorporated in the same file. I have spoken with users who have the images delivered to them the way I set up my test. So, it might look esoteric, but it isn’t in my opinion. Also, I’m perfectly aware of the differences between masks and paths. If it appears as if I’m using the terms interchangeably, I can assure you that it was not my intention to do so. My only excuse is that I didn’t have a technical editor.

* PAGE 29: The report says that splitting up linked InDesign text frames at a specific word “required manipulating the text frames in such as way that the word where we wanted the split to appear was at the start of the frame”. This is unnecessary. Just position your cursor in front of the required word and tap the Numeric Enter key.

I think what this just described, counts as “manipulating the text frames in such as way that the word where we wanted the split to appear was at the start of the frame”.

* PAGE 30: Here the report compares a pro-class £199 extra-cost QuarkXPress XTension with a low-end, built-in feature included with InDesign. To balance this test, InDesign should have been upgraded with a similar pro-class imposer plug-in. The report also states: “Adding a trim and bleed areas to an item on a page in InDesign CS3 involves creating the lines and arrows manually”. InDesign CS3 comes with a CropMarks script, installed as standard, that can do this automatically.

I don’t think there is a GBP 199 tool for IDCS3. Also, I don’t believe a script exists that will add the information to items as Item Marks does.

LAYOUT also challenges the following assertions in the report:

PAGE 6: “In InDesign CS3… all text frames still have to be linked manually… text boxes also have to be linked from page to page explicitly.” This is true if you follow a QuarkXPress-inspired workflow of drawing text boxes first, then filling them with text afterwards. If you follow an InDesign-inspired workflow of placing the text and drawing text frames simultaneously, you can actually generate multiple text frames linked across any number of empty pages, while simultaneously placing the text inside them, with a single click (plus keyboard modifier).

I was talking about a master page / template workflow here, so I think this is not a valid critique. I do accept the critique about omitting the shift-key auto text flow. However, the report tested the ability to start typing in the text box, and InDesign doesn’t allow this, so the result still holds.

PAGE 8: “InDesign CS3… users can save H&Js and other elements as part of a stylesheet, save the stylesheets to an external settings file and then load these in the other document.” InDesign CS3 does not have ’stylesheets’. H&J settings do not exist as independent styles: they are an element of Paragraph Styles. You do not have to export all styles to an external file before they can be shared with other layouts: instead, you can import Paragraph Styles, Character Styles, Swatches etc directly from one InDesign document to another.

IDCS3 doesn’t have H&Js in the sense that I can create a named H&J setting and refer to that in multiple styles and include that in a job jacket. That’s the kind of independent setting file that I want workflows to use.

PAGE 26: “QuarkXPress 7 and InDesign CS3 both have their set of creative filters and effects… However, it has no sense discussing which of these are more valuable or look better.” It should have been quite easy to speed-test the performance of each program’s transparency flattener for a document containing basic opacity effects, either when printing or when exporting to PDF. QuarkXPress 7’s transparency flattener is said to be rather slow: it would have been useful to prove or disprove this.

A bit of a non-sequitur, in my opinion.

PAGE 33: The report is disparaging about InDesign’s “extra dialogues” when exporting to PDF. For balance, it ought also to have noted that QuarkXPress 7’s lack of any intrusive dialogue at all can be dangerous too, as it can mean exporting to the wrong preset by accident. We would also liked to have seen a comparison of PDF file sizes generated by each program.

This is a point, but I didn’t want to go too deep into PDF here. I will be discussing PDF in Adobe workflows and QXP workflows in a later report (or series of articles)…

PAGE 34: “InDesign CS3 has no way of setting up a shortcut that will show the Paragraph Stylesheets (sic) outside of the Stylesheet (sic) palette”. Yes there is: it’s called QuickApply. As well as appearing in their own palettes, Paragraph, Character and Object styles are also available as drop-down menus in the Control palette. Further down the page, the report says: “InDesign CS3 has a new feature called Quick Apply to automate repeating actions”. It’s not a new feature, and it’s not for automating repeated actions: it’s for applying styles and commands using the keyboard only. The way in which QuickApply remembers your last filter keyword is usually accepted as a useful time-saver, but the report describes this behaviour as a “problem”.

First of all, I used the word “Stylesheets” because I’m always confusing the term Styles with Cascading Stylesheets --I should be less sloppy in my language (non-native English writer and all that). I disagree with Quick Apply being a way to set up shortcuts outside of a palette. Quick Apply is just yet another palette in my opinion. Also, Layout says it’s not new, but it was one of the new features in the CS3 press pack, and the claim that it is not meant to ease repetitive actions, is invalid in my opinion --I always thought that was why we want shortcuts in the first place. What’s the use of having them for a one-off action? Also, yes I found the filter system to be a problem, because in my experience, it gets in your way, but this could be personal taste…