1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Quark vs. InDesign

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by sportsed, May 26, 2006.

  1. sportsed

    sportsed Guest

    So ... nothin' on any of those issues I brought up?
  2. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    1. Never noticed that problem.

    2. I much prefer InDesign's drag-and-drop system with photos and other graphic elements.

    3. The dropcap issue doesn't really bother me. What's the difference?

    4. I never really used that option on Quark, so I haven't noticed its absence in InDesign.

    In general, InDesign blows Quark out of the water because of its increased graphic capabilities, ease of text wraps, use of cutouts, etc. And its biggest advantage is its seamless compatibility with graphics and photo programs, i.e. PhotoShop and Illustrator.
  3. sportsed

    sportsed Guest

    Thanks for replying, HST.

    The difference with the drop caps is the way ID does it is different from the way I need them.

    I'll try out that drag-and-drop technique on the photos.
  4. TheHandOfGod

    TheHandOfGod New Member

    Quark is great ... The biggest problem? Most, including myself, don't know how to use all of the features. If you do, it's a sportscar.
  5. expendable

    expendable Well-Known Member

    I was the Neil Peart of Quark, and three months into InDesign, I'm still feeling more like Rick Allen.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page