<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: You Still Use Quark?!</title> <atom:link href="http://creativecurio.com/2007/10/you-still-use-quark/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://creativecurio.com/2007/10/you-still-use-quark/</link> <description>Learn, discuss and explore the realm of Graphic Design.</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 01:43:12 +0000</lastBuildDate> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <item><title>By: Stephen Tiano</title><link>http://creativecurio.com/2007/10/you-still-use-quark/comment-page-1/#comment-82866</link> <dc:creator>Stephen Tiano</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:42:44 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://creativecurio.com/2007/10/you-still-use-quark/#comment-82866</guid> <description>Rereading this this thread this morning, I&#039;m struck by the anti-Quark sentiment. To be sure, I think some of you who don&#039;t like it, sound a little respectful. But unless you remember the state of DTP circa 1990, you might not grasp the historical jump forward that QuarkXPress provided.I got my first Mac in November &#039;89 and a friend gave me his copy of PageMaker (3, I believe). He didn&#039;t know what to do with it and thought I might want to check it out. That version did only single-page files. Books weren&#039;t even a thought yet.You worked on your page in PageMaker on a metaphorical pasteboard, moving things around, locating them, selecting them with the mouse. It was intuitive in that you had that old-fashioned feeling of moving thigs around by hand. Sort of. Problem was that it wasn&#039;t always easy to meticulously place things in tiny, accurate increments.I read about QuarkXPress in one of the Macintosh magazines. It sounded more like a program for that today&#039;s computer geeks, less like it was for refugees from the world of mechanical printing (as PageMaker seemed to be). This would have been version 2.something of Quark, I think.The breakthrough was the ability to fine-tune placements, type size, and leading by typing precise numbers into dialog boxes. Sure, you could still mouse things around the pasteboard--I guess that metaphor wasn&#039;t trademarked or under copyright.But that changed everything. Oh, that, and the new ability to work on multipage documents.So you can say what you want about preferring InDy-I haven&#039;t used Quark in 3 or 4 years myself--but don&#039;t disrespect it. We might not be having these exchanges today if Quark&#039;s founders hadn&#039;t had the vision they did.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rereading this this thread this morning, I&#8217;m struck by the anti-Quark sentiment. To be sure, I think some of you who don&#8217;t like it, sound a little respectful. But unless you remember the state of DTP circa 1990, you might not grasp the historical jump forward that QuarkXPress provided.</p><p>I got my first Mac in November &#8216;89 and a friend gave me his copy of PageMaker (3, I believe). He didn&#8217;t know what to do with it and thought I might want to check it out. That version did only single-page files. Books weren&#8217;t even a thought yet.</p><p>You worked on your page in PageMaker on a metaphorical pasteboard, moving things around, locating them, selecting them with the mouse. It was intuitive in that you had that old-fashioned feeling of moving thigs around by hand. Sort of. Problem was that it wasn&#8217;t always easy to meticulously place things in tiny, accurate increments.</p><p>I read about QuarkXPress in one of the Macintosh magazines. It sounded more like a program for that today&#8217;s computer geeks, less like it was for refugees from the world of mechanical printing (as PageMaker seemed to be). This would have been version 2.something of Quark, I think.</p><p>The breakthrough was the ability to fine-tune placements, type size, and leading by typing precise numbers into dialog boxes. Sure, you could still mouse things around the pasteboard&#8211;I guess that metaphor wasn&#8217;t trademarked or under copyright.</p><p>But that changed everything. Oh, that, and the new ability to work on multipage documents.</p><p>So you can say what you want about preferring InDy-I haven&#8217;t used Quark in 3 or 4 years myself&#8211;but don&#8217;t disrespect it. We might not be having these exchanges today if Quark&#8217;s founders hadn&#8217;t had the vision they did.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Martín</title><link>http://creativecurio.com/2007/10/you-still-use-quark/comment-page-1/#comment-74892</link> <dc:creator>Martín</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:49:46 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://creativecurio.com/2007/10/you-still-use-quark/#comment-74892</guid> <description>They both seem to have that intuitive way of working so it makes absolute sense to me</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They both seem to have that intuitive way of working so it makes absolute sense to me</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Mike</title><link>http://creativecurio.com/2007/10/you-still-use-quark/comment-page-1/#comment-73581</link> <dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:36:22 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://creativecurio.com/2007/10/you-still-use-quark/#comment-73581</guid> <description>Switched to InDesign long time back. I was not comfortable with Quark</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Switched to InDesign long time back. I was not comfortable with Quark</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Antonio</title><link>http://creativecurio.com/2007/10/you-still-use-quark/comment-page-1/#comment-72178</link> <dc:creator>Antonio</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 18:30:47 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://creativecurio.com/2007/10/you-still-use-quark/#comment-72178</guid> <description>InDesign all the way...not loving Quark</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>InDesign all the way&#8230;not loving Quark</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced) (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 14/22 queries in 0.007 seconds using disk

Served from: creativecurio.com @ 2012-05-17 04:29:00 -->
