[Scribus] Quark 7

[Marvin Dickens]

On Tuesday 24 May 2005 11:16 pm, frank gaude' wrote:
> Christoph Sch?fer wrote:
> >> I've found some interesting info on the upcoming quark 7
> >>
> >> http://www.publish.com/article2/0,1759,1766264,00.asp
> >>
> >> jozsefmak
> >
> > Fine! At first glance, Quark seems to implement some features scribus
> > already has (or will have as soon as 1.4 is out -- I'm waiting with
> > baited breath ...).
> >
> > To be honest, I don't think scribus developers should look at Quark
> > anymore as an example. InDesign is state of the art today, and as much
> > as I dislike proprietary software, it's great. In my view, scribus
> > should be able to offer an alternative to InDesign without simply
> > "copying" its features.
> >
> > Unfortunately, matching InDesign's features and reliability won't be
> > enough to compete with Adobe's offerings. GIMP and Inkscape are
> > marching at an impressive pace, but when it comes to printing, they
> > are useless without scribus and/or Photoshop and Acrobat.
>>
> > As much as I admire the progress of FOSS, there are still lots of
> > pieces to add to a seamless Open Source publishing workflow (think
> > about job tickets, software like pitstop etc.)
> >
> > Back to parent: QuarkXPress is dead in the water. For those who have
> > suffered from Quark in the past (a lot of people), this might be final
> > justice, but after Adobe buying out Macromedia, the publishing
> > community has to deal with a new monopoly.
> >
> > My apologies for the rant.
>
> Rant on, fellow... I am in full agreement with you. Even now Adobe has
> raised the bar so high, with CS2 and Bridge between InDesign, Photoshop
> and their other programs, that others will likely never catch up.
> Scribus will get there and along with GIMP and Inkscape will be about as
> good as Open Source can do for a very long time.
>
> In my view too much human energy is being wasted on all the various
> distros instead of better integration of a variety of programs for
> office and graphics production.GIMP suffers from inherent design flaws 
regarding it's human interface.

This thread has been an interesting read (At least for me...).

Most problems in open software (And closed software) do not revolve around 
a lack of features, but the human interface used to access the features an 
application offers. A well known example of this is the GIMP. Here is a link 
that in part, discusses this issue as it relates to the GIMP and other 
programs:

http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/04/11/29/171204.shtml?tid=1&tid=8

There a literally thousand of links on the net that discuss this subject in 
depth. 

With rare exception, usability is the name of the game. Apple, Adobe and many 
others have made their name with usability.  IMHO, the only way I see Scibus, 
GIMP and Inkscape intergrating together to form a well behaved and usable 
suite of applications is if they share a consistant and common human 
interface. One that is totally consistant from app to app. I don't think 
that's going to happen - GTK and QT each provide a consistant interface by 
themselves. However, both libraries simultaneously existing in a suite of 
apps do not.

This is not to say that the three programs are not usable as a suite - They 
are. Further, this is not to say that as individual programs they are not 
usable - They are. What I'm saying is that as a suite they will likely be a 
handfull regarding usability do to inconsistencies in the human interfaces of 
each app.

Just my opinion and nothing more...


Best regards

Marvin Dickens
Alpharetta, Georgia  USA