Mellel as a technical document editor

[ptram]

Hi All,

After the demise of FrameMaker for Mac, a serious tool for technical writing is missing. LaTeX is a rough alternative, with some limitations, and a user interface that makes revisions and content's control very difficult. InDesign, XPress, Scribus and other layout based applications totally miss the scope of writing long, structured documents. Ordinary word processor like Word or OpenOffice do not offer robust enough functions to be considered for really long and articulated documents.

On the other side, Mellel is a proven workhorse when coming to long and structured documents. It is more modernly conceived, and its academic heritage seems to make it the closest contender in the technical publishing world, since technical and academic writing are more tightly related each other, than technical publishing is to magazine publishing.

I'll group here all my observations about the main features that I still feel missing from Mellel, to make it the perfect technical writing application.

- Easy interchange of data between different platforms. I know Mellel will probably remain a Mac only application (and I'm proud of this), but a way to exchange data with translators on other platforms, without having to reapply all styles, auto numbering and referencing, is a must.

- Cross referencing. They are coming, and I'm sure they will be much better than anything else.

- Conditional text. This may have a lower priority, but it is handy in several situations. When working on products that constantly evolve, or are offered in different versions, this proves to be very useful. Say, you have a feature in Rombo Plus, but not in Rombo Basic, conditional text can help you use the same document for two different models, without having to create a different text project.

- Page styles referred to a page, instead of using page breaks. This would help maintaining a certain format for page x, without having to move the break point if you add more text in (or before) page x. Technical documents often use insert pages, with a different page format, where you can find diagrams or collected hints.

- Easy application of templates to an existing document. It happens often that someone asks you to convert an A4 document with two columns, to a US Letter document with three columns in five minutes. I'm not sure this can already be done with Mellel.

- Several different text flows in the same page, usually to add long side notes or extended explanations. I see a use for linguistic and epigraphy works as well.

- Multi-line side notes and headings. You use them in page layouts with a wide side margin, so common in technical docs.

- Headings extending across more columns. Now you must use section breaks to go from single to multiple columns. Using paragraph styles would be much more comfortable with long and articulated documents.

- Master documents, to logically group several chapters in a single book, and do several operations in a single pass (indexing, cross reference updating and format change, change of layout, search and replace, variable editing, spell checking...)

- Search and replace extended to variables, index marks, cross references.

- Page templates with watermarks. Not a high priority feature, but very handy when you must write "Preliminary", "Draft", or "Reserved" under each page.

- Text flowing around images (either around a square border, or the picture's border).

- Images not embedded in the document, but just linked to external files. This should greatly reduce the size of a document.

- Images (and text frames) anchored to a page, in addition to anchored to the text.

- A more comfortable way of moving inside tables via the keyboard.

- Table styles. I use several of them in long documents (one type for options, another one for lists of features, a third one for parallel columns...).

- Internal references converted to PDF bookmarks and links.

- Revision marks. This is mandatory to let your proofreaders understand what you added since the last time.

- Comparison of different versions of the same document. This is mandatory to recover an old document, reuse it for a new project, and give your translators just the new text.

- Multiple TOC (short, extended, local for each chapter, of figures, of tables... - this one could already be in Mellel, but I've not used it yet) and Indexes (list of names, authors, reference books, specialized words...).

Best regards,
Paolo

[rpcameron]

… InDesign, XPress, Scribus and other layout based applications totally miss the scope of writing long, structured documents. Ordinary word processor like Word or OpenOffice do not offer robust enough functions to be considered for really long and articulated documents. …

I feel there needs to be a distinction made here. Mellel, Word and OpenOffice.org Writer are word processors; InDesign, XPress and Scribus are layout applications.

Word processors are great for generating the text you need to include in your work. However, layout programs are not meant to be used for your textual creation. They are for laying out on a page how the text (and other elements) are to look. They allow for in the import of marked up text into predefined elements to automate this, or for the manual insertion of such text. But none of those programs were meant for the original creation of such text, but rather for the manipulation of the text after it had already been created.

The reason layout applications miss the scope for long document management is because they were not meant for long document management.

[ptram]

Patrick,

… InDesign, XPress, Scribus and other layout based applications totally miss the scope of writing long, structured documents. Ordinary word processor like Word or OpenOffice do not offer robust enough functions to be considered for really long and articulated documents. …

I feel there needs to be a distinction made here. Mellel, Word and OpenOffice.org Writer are word processors; InDesign, XPress and Scribus are layout applications.

I feel like we are saying exactly the same thing with about the same words, isn't it?

Word processors are great for generating the text /.../ layout programs are not meant to be used for your textual creation

Now enters the so often cited FrameMaker. A crossover between a wordprocessor and a layout application. With better layout functions than wordprocessors, and a faster, more complete set of text editing functions than desktop publishers. The scope of FrameMaker was to let you write text in a speedy and highly structured way, while keeping care of the final appearance of the document.

I could have cited Interleaf, and probably (on a minor extent) Ventura. Also, I cited LaTeX, because it does basically the same things: speedy text input, with powerful layout control (but not powerful enough for technical manuals).

Why I feel that Mellel can be a viable FrameMaker replacement? Because most of the features required to write academic papers are the same required to write technical documents. Technical writers will not make much use of bibliographies (even if they could), while academics will probably not use some text-around-pictures layout options, but most of the needed features are common to both worlds.

Best regards,
Paolo

[nicka]

The ideal for a considerable number of people (academics and technical writers among them as Paolo says) is a long-document processor. This is a different need from the need for a basic word-processor. I think and hope this is where Mellel is headed.

Many amateurs press Word into service for this purpose because it has more or less the required cross-indexing, notes etc and can just about handle the layout requirements. But it is unreliable and hard to work with once documents pass a certain size and complexity. Some people use LaTeX but it is hard to learn and ultimately offers limited control unless you can write code. Others use FrameMaker but it never made it to OS X, has never been aimed at academics and has apparently stagnated over recent years.
The field appears to be wide open for Mellel to step into the gap, with the stability (now) and features (some now, others soon) to handle long document creation.

That doesn't mean that it has to get artistic page-layout features like text on curved paths or on multiple layers. As Paolo says, technical documents are not magazine layouts. Mellel already has columns, OpenType support and baseline adjustment for images. With cross-references, a bit more control over note placement and a few more layout features it would be suitable for most manuals, text-books and other long documents, even in technical fields. With some of the other features Paolo mentions it would be best of class.

I think that those who don't care about layout or complexity and just want a good environment for writing a single, perhaps long stream of styled text needn't worry because for the technical market it is imperative that the application can handle elegantly even a complicated text with its structure, so it should continue to be an excellent word-processor.

[aechallu]

What strikes me from these discussions is that most users seem to have the need to do all the design in house.

It'd be nice to know how different people use Mellel for other purposes, such as preparing a manuscript for a publishing house. In my field, we're strongly encouraged to keep formatting and design simple, because the publishing house will take care of that. All my line spacing decisions are not only irrelevant for them but also get in their way.

What I'd love Mellel to be is a powerful, yet unbloated word processor (see the other discussion) that allows me to have a document formatted well enough that I can read and pass it, but I don't need much control over frames and stuff like that (beyond having my graphs/tables printed at the top of the pages!).

What worries me is that implementing this kind of layout stuff that people are pushing for (and which I'm sure is a primary concern) will make my primary needs harder to achieve. My needs are:
- full export control (styled RTF, bookmarked PDF)
- versioning (perhaps revisioning) system
- an even more elegant and useful GUI
- more powerful, yet still simple, control of tables/graphs

[Phil82]

- full export control (styled RTF, bookmarked PDF)

I agree with the comment about bookmarked PDF. Perhaps this would be implemented when cross-referencing arrives? However, when you refer to styled RTF, what exactly do you mean? At present, Mellel documents that are exported to RTF usually maintain the visual styles, however they lose the predefined styles that were there in Mellel. I was under the impression that this was because of some RTF format limitation.

- versioning (perhaps revisioning) system

The (only?) beauty of LaTeX the possibility of using code versioning programs, like CVS and SVN. I haven't tried Mellel with these, but I'm assuming they it should work too. If that's the case, it then opens up the debate of whether versioning should be part of the word processor, or some separate program .

- an even more elegant and useful GUI
- more powerful, yet still simple, control of tables/graphs

Both of these are highly subjective. What's elegant, simple and useful to one may not be elegant, simple and useful to someone else. Perhaps you should elaborate on these points?

[ptram]

Nicka,

I think that those who don't care about layout or complexity and just want a good environment for writing a single, perhaps long stream of styled text needn't worry because for the technical market it is imperative that the application can handle elegantly even a complicated text with its structure, so it should continue to be an excellent word-processor.

I think your analysis is right. However, maybe at a certain point the Redlers could decide to split Mellel in two separate products: one (Mellel Light?) with about the current set of features, and a different one (Mellel Pro?), with maybe a higher price tag, and some more complex layout, import/export, and versioning systems.

Obviously, I hope they will not adopt the odd naming system I just proposed...

Paolo

[nicka]

Ptram wrote:

I think your analysis is right.

Thanks. My writing style is awful, though. It hurt my head to reread the sentence you quoted from my previous post.
I have no strong opinion about a possible split between Mellel-the-word-processor and Mellel-the-thing-to-write-your-thesis-or-technical-manual-in. My guess is that the Redlers want to make Mellel capable of long, structured document processing while retaining its current elegance and stability, so there should be no need for the split. (And if there were to be a split I would hope they wouldn't adopt my naming scheme either.)

Phil82 wrote:

However, when you refer to styled RTF, what exactly do you mean? At present, Mellel documents that are exported to RTF usually maintain the visual styles, however they lose the predefined styles that were there in Mellel.

I suppose aechallu has in mind the retention of style names on rtf import/export. In a way this is more important that the actual styling of the text (which I agree is imported and exported well), since it is at a semantic level: it tells you what is a level one heading, what is body text, what is a block quotation etc. If you use consistent styles in Mellel and if style names were preserved on rtf export you could very quickly restyle the document in Word.
Similarly, the loss of style names on rtf import makes restyling in Mellel more of a pain than it needs to be.

[aechallu]

However, when you refer to styled RTF, what exactly do you mean?

I meant preserving style names. RTF exporting is actually quite good format-wise, but the style is lost.

it then opens up the debate of whether versioning should be part of the word processor, or some separate program .

I think Mellel should provide for support of this. Either using repository software, Time Machine or another approach, it should be possible to keep versions of the manuscript and access them within Mellel. That's my opinion.

- an even more elegant and useful GUI
- more powerful, yet still simple, control of tables/graphs

Both of these are highly subjective. What's elegant, simple and useful to one may not be elegant, simple and useful to someone else. Perhaps you should elaborate on these points?

To me elegant and useful can be defined by a list of don't do's: unbalanced menus (from the overpopulated show and view, to the nested Layout), complicated dialog boxes (find/replace), some non-standard procedures/elements (like the triple-clicking to edit auto-titles, or having the show menu in the status bar), not having the ability to edit the toolbar (or either activate it by clicking on a toolbar button), always having nine levels of lists/autotitles. Some of these issues have arisen as we petitioned additional functionality (search/replace, editing autotitles in the text, sections, more palettes, etc). The Redlers delivered, but without streamlining or rethinking the GUI. I'm afraid that as Mellel keeps growing in the DTP area we'll see even more of this GUI patchwork.

I believe I'm not the only user who thinks the GUI is going astray. There were some posts in the past (I remember one by Maria some time before 2.1, and one more recently with a renewed, very well argued posting to have a more standards-compliant aqua interface) that elicited interesting debates.

There have been other postings on tables/graphs, so I'll not extend on this subject. I think that the threads are still on the first page of this forum. Main issues are positioning options (the frames proposal), manipulating columns/row (moving, drag/dropping), table styles.'