The battles have been fought. Paragraphs have been destroyed. Entire documents slaughtered. What for? To test the skills of both QuarkXpress and InDesign.
First Things First
It doesn’t make a bit of difference which program you use if you don’t
know how to design. Page layout programs are just tools. They don’t
make anything without the human touch. A layout will not evolve from nothing
if the computer is left idle for a long period of time.
However, if you are knowledgeable in the area of graphic design (which I’m
guessing you are since you are reading this), there is a large margin of difference
between the two programs. Capabilities, productivity, and flexibility will be
covered in this review.
Round 1: Capabilities
Both programs can be used to layout absolutely stunning pages. Quark (6.0)
has been the standard for years. It’s typographical treatment has been revered.
But with InDesign (3.0), Quark will have to put up a hard fight. The hyphenation
and justification rules in InDesign work far better than any page layout program
to date. The paragraph composer helps eliminate rivers and large gaps between
words in full justified text.
Preview renders in Quark have always been a bit qwerky. Pixilated images and
rough text seemed bearable, but took out the joy of seeing the layout come together.
InDesign’s settings for the viewing quality allow you to work at the best resolution
your computer can output, or preview in rough mode, especially helpful when
working with large images and multiple layers.
Round 1 Winner: InDesign
Round 2: Productivity
I can safely say that nearly every graphic designer knows how to operate QuarkXpress.
Many of those people have never known anything else, and may not want to. Productivity
is so important when meeting deadlines, and no one is going to put the job on
the line to learn a new program.
The best part about InDesign is it’s interface. For those familiar with Illustrator,
or even Photoshop. working in InDesign will be a breeze. It’s new, Quark-like,
toolbar provides the user with parameters pertaining to the currently selected
object. The slide out drawers hold other adjustments and the styles.
Just because of the pre-established user base, Quark comes out a winner on
productivity.
Round 2 Winner: QuarkXpress
Round 3: Flexibility
Working with pure Photoshop and Illustrator native files is a dream, and can
only be done in InDesign. Quark’s picky input and output makes it a pain to
work with most all of the time. Printing seems to take forever on a good day.
I don’t even want to mention how horrible Quark is at .pdf output. InDesign
is still a young program, but its features already fathom those of Quark’s.
Round 3 Winner: InDesign
Designers will adopt InDesign more and more. I think it will soon replace Quark
as the industry standard.