Whilst making my way through some promotional and other design related emails this week I couldn’t help but notice an advert that made mention of Macuser’s 5 star, sorry mouse, review of Quark Xpress 8, something which raised an eyebrow or two given my experiences of the software concerned to date. Having used it for a couple of months now I still find it rather incredible that any reviewer could give the latest release of Xpress top marks and reading the review now in a retrospective manner I still find it strange that it garnered such an award.
It’s a review that doesn’t actually give much insight into the programme bar a few new features nor does it look at some of the quirks and things that are wrong or awkward to use with version 8. The “truly modern look” of the interface for a start is nothing of the sort, more a colour throwback to the chunky icon days gone by of Pagemaker and Corel Draw and a whole world away from the more simple and easy on the eye approach used by Adobe in their applications which also take up a lot less space on the screen, the main toolbar being a perfect example. Once it was as Adobe still is, a simple box with simple icons that didn’t need colourful touches or huge icons. In their place now though are larger bulky creations with rather unnecessary detailing added to them ,the picture box icon being a perfect example of this.
The review also waxes lyrical about the grid system and guides palette and credit is due for the handling on offer for native Photoshop files. What it glazes over and fails to mention is that the programme just isn’t as easy or user friendly as it was. Text boxes and text on alternate lines can be difficult if it at times impossible to click between without leaving the text box and clicking on it again being one infuration that should have been dealth with before release. There are many more similar niggles but by far the biggest black mark so far against Xpress is creating PDFs. Once this was a straightforward method, InDesign’s was simpler, but it worked and merely needed a bit of speeding up in terms of processing. Now though for some strange reason PDFs times have increased from being inconsistent to at least three fold on many projects I’ve worked on. This isn’t a small problem, it is a huge one especially for printers and studios that work on a fast turn around basis. Whereas an 80 page brochure could be sent to PDF in say 4 hours or so in Quark 6 with Acrobat Distiller 7/8 on a G5 Mac, now that same project can take twice as long even with two people on two different Macs and it is a baffling if not downright infuriating problem. Not to mention a costly one too, where time is money to some people and designers and it’s one area where you cannot afford to release a product that will stifle and slow down production and turnaround times. It’s not something that looks like it’s going to be solved at any point soon either, if 8.1 update is anything to go by. Distiller in CS4 is quicker to process the postscript files yet Quark lets it’s side of the team down badly and this more than anything else should have seen at least one of those five mice struck off the review score. New grid layouts and nice guide control are all very well and nice to show off but surely any reviewer should have tested the product out more thoroughly and fully especially if it’s going to award it the highest mark possible on it’s scoring scale.
The problem Quark has is of course is that it’s a smaller operation than Adobe, which in a way makes it strange to see it still pushing on with the interactive and web based design features – personally I’d hope that at some point soon, given the complaints that look to have rained in if some forums are anything to go by, Quark returns to solely being a desktop publishing application, focussing on doing that and making that side of things run as smoothly and damn near perfectly as it can. Especially given the hefty price tag it still carries today – Quark certainly has promoted and marketed it’s upgrade prices like never before for version 8 but the upfront cost of a new version is still an eye and wallet-watering one for any new purchaser and for the price you pay out you expect better than what Quark does serve up with version 8.
The top marks for Quark are puzzling when put into context when compared with the review of InDesign CS4 which was also awarded 5 mice and is Macuser’s A-List publishing tool - deservedly so in my experience and opinion, it does seem a strange to look at both of these programmes getting top marks when one is clearly ahead of the other, rather than being a nip and tuck contest as to which is the better application. With people I know it has been the case that even those who were initially taken with Quark 8 time and constant use has led to more small and large annoyances and quibbles being discovered with the programme with some wishing for the good old days of Quark 6 to return – not what Quark will have been aiming for with a new release but that is the way that the version 8 experience has been for me also.
In fairness it has to be said that InDesign itself is not perfect – the links palette could still in my opinion be easier to use (it’s one feature that seems to befuddle new users), it could do with faster scrolling around the document (whoever decided to get rid of the navigator palette needs a slight talking to), grouping objects together brings them both to the front of the document which is an annoyance especially when you want a cutout picture to partially overlay a border or another pic and it could do with it’s own implementation of Quark’s object rotation where you can rotate an object with the object tool rather than having to switch to another tool or click on a tool palette and enter or click up/down keys to rotate an object.
Those, a probably a few other quibbles aside InDesign is, as has been for sometime now, the better of the two for designers out there and the world of design is the better for that competition continuing. For years Quark was the dominant force in the field of desktop publishing, apologies to any Pagemaker enthusiasts but that is how the world was back then, and as a result it didn’t push on much, witness the long time between versions 3 and 4 and the adding of a simple but much asked for effect of type on a path to make it’s appearance natively in Quark in version 4. Quark needs InDesign to push it and likewise InDesign needs Quark to push it on and continue developing. I admit to preferring InDesign and think it is by far the better of the two programmes as an overall package and it does deserve to become the market leader at some point, however the disappearance or buyout (if it ever happened) of Quark by Adobe would only be a detriment to InDesign’s future. The competition between the two should help promote further development of both programmes and the features they offer, hopefully for sometime to come.
2 Responses to “Quark 8 a five star showing?”