FrameUsers.com

Sep. 10, 2007 – On August 24, 2007, I submitted an article to this forum that described problems encountered with Adobe’s technical support staff while trying to use RoboHelp 6 as a single source conversion tool. Specifically, I was using RoboHelp 6 to convert a Framemaker 7.2 book, and associated files, to FlashHelp/html. I still think Adobe’s technical support staff has serious problems, which in my opinion must be resolved at Adobe’s executive management level. Having stated that, I want to say that Adobe’s marketing staff finally resolved the technical problem I previously described, and RoboHelp 6′s FlashHelp is surprisingly impressive looking. It was quite a struggle, but at the end of the day I would recommend RoboHelp 6 as a viable conversion tool for any technical writer who loves using Framemaker (as I do) and wants to produce single-source high-quality online help systems by converting Framemaker files to online help with a few clicks of the mouse.

For Framemaker users interested in using RoboHelp 6 in this manner, here is a recap of the problem we encountered, and its resolution. Heading3 titles were missing from the output FlashHelp TOC (and all other HTML help formats converted by RoboHelp 6). On the FlashHelp side, RoboHelp had successfully created Heading3 topics from source Framemaker files, but they were difficult to view without links in the online help’s TOC. As it turned out, the problem was in the Framemaker TOC file at the book level. On the FM-TOC reference page, I was using tabs to align Heading1TOC, Heading2TOC and Heading3TOC styles. While this setup worked fine on the Framemaker side, such tabs apparently confuse RoboHelp during the import/conversion process. So the fix was to remove all tabs (on the FM-TOC reference page) and add substitute indentations to the paragraph designers for Heading1TOC, Heading2TOC and Heading3TOC in the First and Left indentation fields (clear as mud, right?). The original FM-TOC had an additional glitch which no one was able to figure out, but eventually we just discarded it and created a new one that looked and acted like the old one, but without the tabs. At that point, everything worked great. Fixing the problem required assistance from an Adobe marketing engineer (as opposed to Adobe technical support) who knew both Framemaker and RoboHelp.

Compounding the problems I experienced with Adobe’s technical support team was RoboHelp’s baggage. RoboHelp was a very hot product in the late 90′s, early 2000′s. But in recent years, it fell from grace. Many people wrote it off because Macromedia was apparently sending signals that it would be discontinued. Then Adobe acquired Macromedia and released RoboHelp 6 in January 2007. Unfortunately, they did not provide the public relations or technical support needed, particularly in the Framemaker community. But the bottom line is RoboHelp 6 works very well as a single source tool for Framemaker users. And it’s relatively inexpensive compared to alternate tools, such as Webworks ePublisher by Quadralay. RoboHelp 6 costs $1000 to purchase a single-user license, and $500 to upgrade an existing license for an older version. This is highly competitive when compared with Quadralay’s Webworks ePublisher which starts at $2,500 per individual licenses.* Omni System’s Mif2Go is a viable approach. It only costs $300, but Omni Systems appears to be a one-man company, which is a little scary. If that isn’t a concern, Mif2Go may be a better solution; however, I don’t think it has FlashHelp.

In addition, I wish to respond to a criticism that others have made about RoboHelp 6. Some people criticize it because it only converts one way – from Framemaker to online help, but it does not convert RoboHelp systems back to Framemaker. To me, this is an unfair and unrealistic criticism. Converting a RoboHelp project/system would require a major design overhaul, and it is unclear if there is a market for it. Does a typical RoboHelp user want to convert his/her help system to Framemaker? I have not done any marketing research in this area, but my gut reaction is NO. From my experience, writers who author in online help do not necessarily think and organize their thoughts in a similar manner as writers who essentially write printed materials, which is the mindset of Framemaker users. On the other hand, I know that many Framemaker users are interested in better and cheaper ways of converting Framemaker user manuals to online help systems. It seems like Adobe’s engineering team made a wise decision to tweak RoboHelp’s source code so it could convert Framemaker files to various help formats available via RoboHelp. That way Adobe is targeting known Adobe users (FrameMaker users) to purchase another Adobe product (RoboHelp) in an area where there is a known demand (Frame-to-help conversion).

Converting from Framemaker to any online help system is a fairly straight-forward process because generally the writer has put a fair amount of thought into the organization and flow of the document. Chapter and section titles typically use standard paragraph styles: Heading1, Heading2, and Heading3 (sometimes Heading4 and higher). The primary function of the conversion tool is to convert Heading1, Heading2, Heading3 paragraph styles and accompanying text into individual online help topics. This is true of RoboHelp 6, Webworks, and Mif2Go. The stated conversion tools do essentially the same thing. On the flip side, reversing the process is more complex for reasons that have little to do with technology, more to do with basic writing. RoboHelp-to-Frame conversion would require a fairly complex subsystem for defining which online topics must go to specific chapters in the printed format. And there is the very real possibility that the RoboHelp author was not a clear-thinking individual, and fooled people by adding lots of bells and whistles that look slick, but provide little technical assistance to users. Unfortunately, I have observed this sort of behavior in the past among RoboHelp users. There is also an intangible quality about RoboHelp—as an authoring tool—that seems to enable such behavior, whereas Framemaker does not. No software application can cure such a problem.

So my suggestion to Framemaker users is use RoboHelp 6 to port your documents to online help. Don’t worry about trying to use RoboHelp as an authoring tool because Framemaker is much better. Regarding the reverse conversion process, I question whether there are many RoboHelp users who want to convert their systems to Framemaker. Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but I don’t think I will.

David Sharp
Principal Technical Writer/Consultant
Dsharpwriter2@yahoo.com

* In May of 2007, a Quadralay sales VP quoted $2,500 as the cheapest price available for Webworks ePublisher. Since then, at least one Framemaker consultant has privately told me that Quadralay will haggle with people and has been known to sell ePublisher for as low as $1,000.