Characterized as “future technologies,” will these features be in this Spring’s upcoming fourth release of InDesign, dubbed CS 2.0?
David Blatner reports on InDesignupdate that ad hoc demonstrations from Adobe provided sneak peeks into the future of InDesign, though the software maker was as careful as ever not to commit to inclusion of any features in the upcoming release of InDesign CS 2.0–which Quark VS InDesign predicts will be announced within the next 45 days and released inside 90.
Among the new features are:
- The ability to toggle layers and layer comps in placed Photoshop PSD files.
- A revamp to the Microsoft Word import filter that allows mapping of Word styles to InDesign’s.
- Anchoring of objects that appear outside text frames to text locations inside text frames–similar to FrameMaker.
- Drag-and-drop text.
- The ability to move pages via a new Move Pages dialog box.
- And an Apply Next Style feature that appears to be able to apply an entire string of cascading style sheets to a whole story with a single click.
For more, read David’s post on InDesignupdate.
7 responses to “First Look: InDesign 4”
I like the idea Apply Next Style function. It would be a huge boost in productivity for those of us in the magazine and newspaper industry. Now all they need to do come out with a tool to convert Quark 6 to InDesign CS. …we’re waiting…
Well, lets see…
Parity with Quark’s PSD Import…Adobe’s paying close attention.
Nice. Nice. That will save a step or fourteen, if I think to format my .docs first.
Alright, I’ll cop. Time to let my ignorance show. I’ve never used FrameMaker, so I’ve got an honest, question: what is that good for?
Needed. Have been able to get along without it, but nice.
Yes. Good move. I’m no dummy, but I don’t always get along with moving pages on the pages palette. Wait, maybe I am a dummy. Skip that. B-)
Almost droolworthy. Bring this on.
Jay,
I had started a reply to this the other day but got called away.
Ohhhh, yeah.
I can see it now: One click to get the byline, deck, nut graf, body, sub heads, end mark…
This is a two-fold problem for Adobe:
First is a matter of technology. The QuarkXPress 6 project file format is proprietary and kept close to the vest. Since Quark introduced the multiple-layout project model, the file formats have changed radically. Without that file spec, Adobe can’t build an import filter (legally).
Second, is marketing: How far do they support Quark switchers? In my humble but very experience opinion, I think they need to update the import filter through Quark 6. They can leave XPress 5 alone if necessary. I think only seven people bought Quark 5, and I’m two of them. :-) Whether they will need to import Quark 7 files depends on how strong a showing 7 has in its first quarter.
My bet is that, if anyone comes out with a Quark 6 import filter for InDesign, it will be ALAP. They have access to both codebases that neither Quark nor Adobe has.
Sam,
Indeed, and they’ve one-upped Quark with support for Layer Comps.
The main use for this, I think, will be design departments. Most editorial and copy writers use Word, often with styles. This will ease the job of the designer who has to take the stories in Word .DOC format into InD.
Honestly, I would love to see InCopy gain more ground in editorial workflows. It does everything a writer needs from Word, but integrates so much more elegantly with InD–not to mention making the creative tasks easier on the designer.
Think of FrameMaker as InDesign for programming types. Yeah, it’s as ugly and scarey as you’re imagining.
Most technical manuals and many longer, complicated layout books are produced in FrameMaker. It has better support for math equations, automation, and auto-numbering (including auto-numbering and tracking captions, illustrations, graphs, charts, etc.) than InD, PageMaker, or Quark.
Now, in any decent layout application you can stick images into text inline–an illustration inside the text flow, for example, so that, if the text flows onto another page, the image goes with it. In FrameMaker you can actually place images outside the text flow, but anchored within it, so a chart appears in the page margin instead of wrapping the text, but if that story flows to another page, the margin chart goes with it. This is what will be added to InDesign, meaning, conceivablly, that manual repositioning of images tied to particular portions of copy could be a thing of the past.
I always tell my students that using InD’s Pages Palette is like a video game: You need good hand-eye coordination to position the cursor in just the right spot…
Why would you want to import into ID? its a waste of time. I like to make money using my production app – and that what XPress is – its the best return for your dollar. 6.5 rocks, and Quark has changed soup to nuts.
ID is slow, output is average, and the coupld of cool features its has over XPress, are a distraction to the truth.
XPress is a far superior product; Adobe is a far superior marketing machine. Don’t buy into the hype. Even getting ID for free should clue you in – your going to lose precious deadline time, and quality of output.
“Honestly, I would love to see InCopy gain more ground in editorial workflows. It does everything a writer needs from Word, but integrates so much more elegantly with InD—not to mention making the creative tasks easier on the designer.”
What are you taling about? Have you ever worked in Editorial workflow? Editors and copyfitters do not need to be concerned about design – which is why CopyDesk, XPress and Quark Publishing Systems (QPS) are the best solutions in any combination InCopy and ID are ten years behind in this department.
Chirs,
It’s obvious that you are a passionate and dedicated supporter of Quark. Good for you! I admire a person with passion.
You should show the world your passion. Put one of our pro-Quark (or anti-InDesign) button links on your website. You’ll find quite a selection on the Choose A Side page.