QuarkXPress vs. InDesign For Speedy Production

If You’re a QuarkXPress old user, it’s better to stay with this software. I was working heardly both with QXP and InDesign, but I like more Quark for its stability. If you can, make an upgrade to QXP v8 – it has strong tools for working with vectors (like Illustrator), accepts AI files and PSD files, it has an excellent PDF export tool (verified – PDF files are working great, even the new PDF-X3 file type) and a very good color management, both on PC’s and Macs. More, QXP v8 is already an international version (I’m using it for texts in non-english languages, it has excellent hypenation even in other languages). I’m using ID only for generating PS files from layouts received from my clients and that’s all – even in ID I use the Quark keybord shortcuts, it makes sens to me! But the decision is Yours, at least.

- does it make sense…..
Both apps are fine for either production or fancy design

- does prod. get faster….
Of corse it does!, especially if you like time saving techniques such as working with adobe native files loaded with layers and transparencies

- are there hidden keyboard….
I dont know that specific quick key command but if you need space at the end of paragraphs
Sure! Lots to learn. http://www.uwec.edu/help/InDesignCS2/frmt-para.htm

-Also, is there an easy way…..
There are conversion techniques, both within Adobe and with 3rd party companies but mileage will vary. Expect a lot of file reworking. Legacy files are a great reason to stay with quark.

- Has Indesign fixed……
You can export an nterchange format to open across versions. Quark is particularrly friendly with past versions either. It really is asking too much to expect an old program to interpret code that hasn’t been invented yet so it is nice at least that old features are compatible with old software (whereas the new features are not.)

- ALl you quark and IND users…..

I switched to Indesign on a big project and the slow down factor was VERY frustrating, but afterwards I never felt compelled to return to quark. I need to move software from machine to machine and I found Quarks copy-protection scheme to be intolerable. Perhaps things have changed in that regard since I switched. I was also VERY angry about $600 upgrades for VERY unstable software back in the v5 & v6 days. If you dont have time to deal with the learning curve and need to use old files then DO stay with Quark, but at least say thanks to Adobe for putting a competitor out there to force quark to deploy reasonable pricing and to have incentive to make a more solid product.

Shirley, I feel your pain. We’ve all been there. It seems like ID is so inefficient… but after you learn how it works, and start customizing it to the way you work, you’ll start to see why the majority of the publishing world has switched to ID now.

You asked about keyboard shortcuts: Yes, there are lots and lots of shortcuts in InDesign. In fact, every shortcut is editable (Edit > Keyboard Shortcuts) and every menu or panel menu item that doesn’t have a shortcut can be given one.

If the Control panel is displaying character formatting and you want paragraph formatting, press Command-Option-7. Press Cmd/Ctrl-6 to jump to the Control panel, then 5 tabs to skip to the Space After field; type value then Enter.

As for converting QX files: ID can read 3.3 and 4.1 files by itself reasonably well. Later versions of QX files can be opened with the Markzware Q2ID plug-in.

I will say that if you have an old computer, and QX4, it may be faster for straight flow of long docs than ID. But when dealing with 21st century computers or software, ID is the way to go, in my humble opinion.

Best wishes,
David Blatner, indesignsecrets.com
(Ex-QX user from the old days)

Hi, Shirley,

I have tried InDesign and for a while it seemed to be cooler, as it could do shadows and transparencies, whereas Quark could not.

However especially version 8 I am using Quark extensively again.

Main reason is – like others have posted here – the speed and simplicity. I can create layouts in Quark much faster than with InDesign’s Palette/Panel Zoo. The interface in Quark is much cleaner and with less clicks I can still achieve almost everything I can with older versions of Quark or InDesign.

Speed is king, isn’t it?

Beside that I like how Quark uses transparencies: I can make one character opaque, something that is hard using InDesign. Also, in Quark 8 the optical character alignment is customizable. In InDesign I need to trust programmers for good typography. Trust who?

And recently I have discovered the Flash export in Quark. I thought Adobe had followed Quark with CS4 but they just did a pretty limited and static Flash export in CS4. I still need the Flash app to create nice banners or Flash web sites using ID.

It might be me, but that’s just too difficult for me. Quark allows me to do that without any programming, no timeline to struggle with and so on. Really easy in Quark and a great time saver, as it allows synchronizing content. Ok, I am not creating many Flash pages yet, but it is good additional business and probably the future.

Bottomline: Don’t underestimate training. If you are good in Quark, why learn a new layout app, where you’ll be slower? For the occasional illustrated cover page I rather use Illustrator and import the AI into Quark.

Plus, Quark gives me two installations, even across platforms. As I have a few Windows customers, I can use the second installation on Parallels.

Anyhow, that’s my opinion. David’s experience seems to be old (Quark 4? 5? 6?) as he states himself.
And David’s opinion might be humble (his InDesign tips & tricks are great!), but as he earns money teaching InDesign, he might have a strong personal preference.

Cheers
Peter

My company is switching from Quark to InDesign. What a horrible decision. InDesign makes things harder to do for no good reason. It slows down production. If you can do things in one step in Quark, it will take three steps in InDesign. Stay with Quark!

The decision is easy to make, Shirley, just think Quark is dying, you definitely want to use a product for the future, right?

That’s what they say – Quark is dying. And who knows, it may be true. It seems InDesign has a lot of people hoodwinked. And it’s a great mystery to me why? InDesign is a painful program to use. We are taking a step backwards in ease of use for no good reason. It’s doubly hard to get to the text and pictures to move and manipulate the copy/images. The spell checker is clunky and slow to use. It tries to think for you and does things you have to correct later because you really didn’t want to do it. You have to keep changing tools more often than Quark so it slows down your production. It reminds me of people who defend PCs over Macs. Mac is simple and user friendly. PCs are cumbersome. Quark is easy and user friendly. InDesign is a headache. But some people seem to prefer to do things the hard way.

I always have to laugh when I hear of people holding on to QuarkXPress. I used it back in the day and loved it. But, lets face it, QuarkXPress is a dying product and it is so for good reason. The only reason I see people holding on to this product is because they are set in there ways and afraid to use something new or different. There is certainly a learning curve and your production will slow down for a bit until you get used to it but the integration and familiar key commands will allow you to layout faster than ever. I love InDesign and cringe if I ever have to open up Quark. InDesign is simply a better program.

But here’s the deal. I’ve been using InDesign now for about 6 months. I’m not afraid to try something new. I’m doing it. But I find it to be an inferior product with regard to ease of use and function. And that disappoints me. Because the truth is I really wish that I would have discovered that it’s better. Because I really like better, easier, superior. But InDesign is not! A lot of people got mad at Quark because they were not a particularly friendly company and their product is expensive. But the truth is they have a superior product. Going from Quark to InDesign is like going from a power drill to a hand drill, and then claiming the hand drill is a better and easier product to use.

My company has recently made the switch to InDesign. For me, I am very happy about the switch since I was using InDesign for side projects and personal things anyway. InDesign is hands down a quicker program. Navigating the layout is much faster than Quark. If it is taking you multiple steps to something you could have done it one step with Quark, you are doing it wrong or a roundabout way.
I’ll just tackle the few things you mentioned.
You said that getting to text and moving images and copy around is doubly hard in InDesign.
Actually, the ease of going from text to images is one of the number one reasons why I think InDesign is faster. If you have a text frame selected with the move tool, simply double click the frame and you are in the text. Press escape and your back to the move tool. Now in Quark that would be, go over to the tools panel, select the text tool, go back to frame, click and then you can edit your text. Need to go back to the object tool, well there is another trip to the tools panel. When your on a graphic, double click to switch to the direct select tool and double click again to go back to the move tool. Want to do the same in Quark? Well you’re going to have to make a few trips to the tools panel again. And how about linking a text box to another. How many trips to the tools panel is that in Quark, when in InDesign you would simply click on the square in the lower left of the frame and click anywhere to make a new frame or click an existing frame to thread text to it instead. Plus, don’t even get me started on importing text and graphics. In Quark, draw a frame, cmd/ctl E, select picture or text to bring it in, then repeat over and over again for every element you need to bring in. In Indesign, grab all the files you need, drag and drop them on the layout. No need to draw frames ahead of time and bring things in one at a time. InDesign makes frames for you and can import more than one graphic or text document at a time.
Now, Quark may do some of these things better in version 8 (I don’t know because I don’t own it), but that brings to the other reason you should drop Quark. More than likely you need AI, Photoshop and Acrobat so it only makes sense to buy the bundled creative suite which comes with InDesign. So why spend more money on a separate program that may or may not be just as good as a program you already have. For my company, even if Quark has finally improved their program with version 8, it is too little, too late.

With that said, there are a handful of things that are annoying about InDesign. For one, you have to click a little bit above a line of text to select it. It is like the baseline of the text tool is higher in InDesign than virtually every other program on the planet. I have been using InDesign for almost a year now and still end up selecting the wrong line. Also, you can’t just justify text if the text frame is wrapping around an object. You can fool it by checking the box that says “ignore text wrap,” then selecting justify, then unchecking the “ignore text wrap” box.
But the few annoyances in InDesign pale in comparison to the vast amount of headaches that Quark caused me day in and day out.

You should not go what others say, make your decision depending on what you get.
SHOULD use evaluation copies of QuarkXPress 8 & ID CS4 too.
-Evaluation copy of QuarkXPress 8 will work for 60 days as a full functional copy and then you can decide if you want QuarkXPress or ID. Here you go……

I use Quark and InDesign interchangeably. I have Quark 8 at my home office, and use Quark 7 and InDesign at a separate job. Many printers prefer InDesign. I find InDesign to be a bit of a dog. When I want to slam out production, I use Quark. InDesign is slow and fussy. There are no key commands for where they are most needed. I don’t want to customize key commands in InDesign, because I don’t want to deal with it, and don’t want to confuse custom commands at home with the uncustomized InDesign at my other job. InDesign reminds me a bit of the slow,bloated, grogginess of Illustrator. (I loved the superior program, Freehand.) It seems that in the computer world, people feel obligated and suckered into embracing whatever is newest.

You can debate the pros and cons of these two programs until you’re blue in the face but the underlying determining factor really comes down to price for most people.
Basically Indesign is free because most designers will want to purchase Adobe Creative Suite which includes Indesign. So why pay $800 for a program that no one is really sure is better than the free one. Creative Suite will be the nail in Quarks coffin.
I have never used Quark but I can tell you this. I just love Indesign and have used it for ten years.

Call me crazy… I’m a bit of a thinker. I like 2 button mice, more features and more options. So yeah I like Indesign better than Quark.

If you like 1 button mice and you never want to learn anything new and just breeze through the day on auto-pilot slapping designs together without much thought then continue to use Quark.

I’ve had to use Quark for years and I tried Quark 8. The fact that the program has continually become slower and that all the new features are “tacked-on” and late coming (remember multiple -undos and drop shadows) just shows you that they cater to the less mindful computer user, the non-artist, the non-thinker.

I have an interesting take on this debate. I started doing layout as a volunteer in the non-profit world in 1999. The museum had pagemaker and that’s where it started. I took a job at another non-profit in 2001 and they had purchased Quark at a discount and were using it for newsletters, print ads etc. Like moving from a Pinto to a Lexus. I’m pretty much self taught and managed to muddle my way through the program for about 3 years. Then I decided there had to be a better way to work so I took a class at the local community college. They taught Quark for the first half of the semester and then moved on to InDesign. They did this because after using both, NO ONE ever went back to Quark. Traded my Lexus for a Ferrari! Now, in 2009 Quark isn’t even offered, it’s InDesign all the way!

I have used indesign since it came out. Before that I used quark and hated it every time I used it. I cursed how it was layed out and the lack of keyboard shortcuts for the things that I wanted. When InDesign came out I jumped head on into it and never walked back.

My production is 1000 times faster. InDesign is not bulky at all. The palettes make it easier to use. I have converted many die hard Quark users to InDeisign as well as two other companies.

Once they use it and see that quark hides a lot of its features and InDesigns has them all in palettes they never turn back. I also teach as well as have my own design business and we do not use quark or teach it at all.

I find quark to be cumbersome and bulky. I recently checked out QXP 8 and not only are there features a little to late, but some of them look exactly like IND. The have palettes on the right and a welcome screen like IND..HMMMM

Quark is terrible. Yes, I have used both. I haven’t touched Quark since 2001 (back at University) and there is a perfectly good reason for that, it is a silly program – as Dale said ‘just shows you that they cater to the less mindful computer user, the non-artist, the non-thinker.’ I don’t think anything decent and worth looking at can be created in Quark.

I am currently working as a graphic designer, putting together 3 different magazines. When I first started here back in 2008, the company had Quark 4 (which is just ridiculous), Photoshop 7 and still used CorelDraw! I managed to convince the boss to get with the program and update. The ‘designer’ here (who I replaced) was the accounts lady who self taught herself ‘design’ – no wonder Quark was still being used here. I was so quick to redesign everything in InDesign – which didn’t take long at all.

Quark died a long time ago – get with the program. It’s not about ’selling out’ or just following trends, it’s about being professional and UP TO DATE – which is what a great designer should be.

hey marie – you need to back that up by showing us an example of great design by your fair hand … because without it, i susoect what you’ve posted is the bullshit all of us already know it is. we are talking about practicalities here. we don;t want to wank on about ‘features’. we mwant to get a job done. to standard. quickly.