QuarkXPress 5: Moving Ahead or Falling Behind?

7

QuarkXPress has been a darling of professional desktop publishers since its first version back in 1987, and for good reason: No other program supplied a similar range of reliable and sophisticated text and graphic controls. With each upgrade, Quark becomes a little more powerful and version 5 is no exception.

But in the years since the last major release of the product, the playing field has changed. Whereas Adobe InDesign 1.0 faltered badly in 1999, the just-released InDesign 2.0 is another matter entirely. So while QuarkXPress 5 has some nice new features, the program must now be viewed in context of its new, and newly formidable, competition.

Major new features to QuarkXPress 5 include a table editor, the ability to create Web pages, and layers for organizing various objects in your document. Many minor niceties such as context menus and an enhanced Collect for Output capability that includes fonts and ICC tables are welcome additions, too (see figure 1).


Figure 1: The Collect for Output dialog box in QuarkXPress 5 offers more options than in previous versions.

Caveats to Note
One thing to note about XPress 5, and which tripped me up a bit, is that QuarkXPress does not ship with printed manuals, so if you’re used to finding answers by thumbing through a book, you’ll be disappointed. Manuals are instead provided on disc in PDF format. I didn’t see that at first and wasted a lot of time fumbling through its less-useful online help system. If you tend to not read “Read Me” files, you may want to change your habits. (You can buy printed manuals from Quark online for $50).

Also, Mac users should note that while QuarkXPress 5 runs in Classic mode, it does not run native under Mac OS X, which will undoubtedly annoy some of you. This review was performed on Windows, and XPress does support the major versions of that platform.

Accustomed to the Interface
Those familiar with Quark’s interface will find two new additions to the toolbar: the table tool for creating tables (more on that in a minute) and a scissors tool for slicing lines and curves. Otherwise, the interface remains about the same — a measurement palette for positioning graphics and assigning text attributes, plus palettes that offer control over color, master pages, lists, and styles.

One new palette is used for managing layers in a document, a happy addition. You can create layers that contain text or graphics then use the Layers palette to move elements between layers, and to reorder or flatten them. Each layer is assigned a color so it’s easy to keep track of which layer is which (see figure 2).


Figure 2: Color-coding in the Layers palette makes it easy to keep track of layers.

QuarkXPress’s major strength lies in its excellent type tools, giving you complete control over kerning, tracking, and baseline adjustment. In addition, there’s a superb text-on-a-curve feature for fancier graphic effects. I wonder, though, why the program still has trouble justifying paragraph text in a pleasing manner. InDesign does a much better job with type appearance, thanks to its elegant composer that looks ahead several lines before choosing the best spacing for the text block.

The Good, the Bad, the PDF
QuarkXPress 5 has a lot of new goodies, but we were a bit disappointed with some of the implementations. The convenient (and most welcome) table editor converts tabbed text to tables with ease, and you can format tables with custom lines and fills. Resizing is simple too — drag and pull via the Table tool or enter sizes in the Measurement palette (see figure 3). Unfortunately, the Word import filter still converts tables to tabbed text so you have to remake the tables in XPress. When you create a table, you specify that the contents be text or graphics, but not both, although you can later convert content type and embed picture boxes in cells.Tables can’t break across pages, either — annoying limitations to an otherwise powerful new feature.


Figure 3: You can create tables by converting tabbed text or by dragging the Table tool and specifying rows and columns, as shown here.

If you export to PDF, you’ll be pleased with the nice range of output options in version 5 (see figure 4). Unfortunately, XPress does not include a PDF engine — it uses Acrobat Distiller — so you have to purchase Adobe Acrobat, adding another $249 on top of QuarkXPress’s stratospheric $899 price tag.


Figure 4: QuarkXPress’s PDF Export Options are quite comprehensive, although you still need Adobe Acrobat.

Weak Web Tools
QuarkXPress 5’s Web-page creation options offer a nice selection of features, but they stand outside of the core program. Unlike virtually every other DTP program where you build a publication and then print it or export it to HTML, XPress 5 requires that you specify the file type (normal document, XML or Web document) at file creation time (see figure 5).


Figure 5: You have to choose the production intent — print or Web, HTML or XML — when creating files in QuarkXPress 5.

The end result is that you have to remake documents for multiple uses — a colossal waste of time. However, we do like the ability to create Web pages in a freeform, rather than a rigid linear manner. You can drop text and graphics anywhere on the page and have XPress worry about translating to HTML.

If you elect to create a Web page, you’ll see a new toolbar with icons for creating image maps, buttons, and form items such as list and check boxes, pop-up menus, and text fields (see figure 6). These functions worked perfectly and the output was correctly generated. Like other Web editors, XPress 5 lets you insert hyperlinks, anchors, and metatags, and set link colors for the document.


Figure 6: QuarkXPress 5 has a nice new Web toolbar for adding elements to Web pages.

When it came to previewing my document, I couldn’t find a browser preview. It’s there, in the form of a little globe icon at the bottom of the Web document window (a reference manual would have helped here). Although Quark can import HTML files, I consistently got an error message when trying to do so, even with a plain HTML file containing no images or formatting. (Adobe PageMaker imported the same files without a problem). You can, however, drag and drop items onto the Web page.

Quark implements stong XML support via a separate workspace window with areas to create a tag structure and enter content (see figure 7). To add content, you must drag and drop pieces of the document into the workspace, which is a bit inconvenient and rules out batch XML processing. XML support relies heavily on DTD (Document Type Definition), which specifies the grammatical structure of a Web page in SGML. Quark can incorporate pre-exisiting DTDs into XML templates so you can then map Quark content to XML tags. You can also drag elements types into your document to create placeholders that may be formatted and flow into matching XML data. The manual for XML support is thorough, but buried in the Documentsavenue.quark Documentation folder.


Figure 7: The XML workspace in QuarkXPress 5 lets you add content and create tags.

Frankly, if you are going to embark on the complexities of XML markup, you would be better off purchasing a program that can output XML-tagged output (Adobe FrameMaker or InDesign, for example) and use Adobe Acrobat’s powerful repurposing tools for generating reader output.

Conclusion
Without question, QuarkXPress 5 is a major upgrade, and adherents to this popular and powerful desktop publishing application should rush right out and get a copy. However, With the introduction of InDesign 2.0, XPress is no longer the no-brainer choice for professional DTP.

If I were creating documents for multi-purposing to Web, PDF, and paper, I would choose InDesign, especially since version 2 gracefully imports Quark, XML, and HTML files, so migration is relatively painless. Apart from the fact that InDesign is $200 cheaper and ships with integrated PDF export, a nice font collection and manual, the program can import native Photoshop files and has superior typography tools (including Unicode and Japanese kana support).

The bottom line: Current users of QuarkXPress will definitely want to upgrade. But if you are looking for the most DTP for your money, I suggest Adobe InDesign, at least until the next round of feature wars.

Read more by Susan Glinert.

  • anonymous says:

    I agree with everything in the review apart from the parting shot which recommends that all QXP users “rush out and get a copy”. Sorry, but this is not a major upgrade. There are no killer features which aren’t already available as XTensions to QXP 4.x users. Anyone with a keen interest in tables, Web output and layers will have bought a bunch of XTs already, and won’t need this upgrade. Worse for British users, Quark’s UK pricing structure puts QXP 5.0 at around 600 US dollars more expensive than InDesign 2.

  • anonymous says:

    Quark has always been a greedy, self-centered company, but they’ve really gone out of their way to fleece their customers this time. Visit the Quark Web site and you will see that v.5 is $899 (OMG!) and if you want the two volume manual, they will charge $50 more. The manuals are .pdf only. They are actually charging $50 for a .pdf file. OMG!

    It is about time they improved the collect for output feature. That should have been a free upgrade years ago. No more of my money will go to Quark.

    They have terrible customer service, so if this very expensive program with no manual doesn’t work, you will be on your own.

    InDesign is a losing proposition as well. Maybe we should all go back to using PageMaker.

  • anonymous says:

    From reading this review, I’d have to say this is far from a must-have upgrade for XPress users. The list of new features is less than compelling and the most important new feature that should have been there is missing – XPress 5 is not OS X native. What is Quark smoking over there in Denver? It’ll take a few years, but this is probably the turning point in the XPress/InDesign battle. Start saying good-bye to XPress.

  • anonymous says:

    The reviewer completely neglects the strongest aspect of Quark for many years. It has always been a program which will cause you very few problems when it comes to output. For anyone who has ever worked in pre-press, or if you would like your files to output correctly, Quark has always been the best bet. Don’t even try to use a duotone in InDesign and the “useful” text tools will probably not print right either. Maybe I’m jaded…but maybe these programs should stop trying to add bells an whistles until they figure out how to make them output in the end usage.

  • anonymous says:

    I have to jump in here as I feel like I’ve been in the middle of the ID vs QXP fray for some time now. There are a couple of issues: 1) how good is this version of QXP and 2) how do the two programs compare. As an editor, it’s difficult to cram both those topics into one review.

    I’ve used both products, but I don’t iuse either for HTML or XML. I use products dedicated to Web authoring. Both products tout their Web capabilities. Personally, it leaves me cold (I know I should care but I don’t).

    The rest of the comparison I leave to personal preferences (and isn’t that always the way it is?). I see merit in both. Currently I do have a preferred program, but I’m keeping my personal choice to myself. The site, however, tries to see both sides. I’ve had some folks tell me we’re too pro-InDesign and others accuse us of being Quark apologists. Whatever. You need to evaluate the products on their own merits and what works for you.

    So Quark people who feel comfortable — and who appreciate its reliable printing should stick with Quark. Others will want to change for one reason or another, whether it’s desire for new features or anger at Quark Inc.

    To me the real issue — and one that Sandee Cohen brought up in her review of InDesign — is whether Quark users will want to upgrade at all. They could easily stick with 4.1 and be happy for some time to come.

    Susan thinks it’s a worthwhile upgrade for existing Quark users *who want to stick with the platform.* (Note the emphasis.)

    We try to help with making the decision, but ultimately the choice is yours.

    Thanks for reading,
    Pamela Pfiffner, editor in chief

  • anonymous says:

    Does Quark 5 have multiple undos? I always thought that was the single biggest failing of the program (that and the fact that some things can’t be undone at all).

  • >