Adobe InDesign CS4 vs. QuarkXPress 8: Efficiency in ... › files › Adobe_InD_QX_Mag_Final.pdfpage layout, including Photoshop, Illustrator and s. Not surpris-ingly, support for

About this report

This report presents the findings of a research and benchmarking study com-missioned by Adobe Systems Incorporated. The aim of the study was two-fold: to analyze key technology differences between Adobe InDesign and QuarkXPress, and to assess the efficiency and productivity of the latest release of the two products in the specific workflow situation of magazine and newspaper publishing.

About the Research

Productivity measures based on the Pfeiffer Consulting Methodology for Productivity Benchmarking, compared workflow productivity of Adobe InDesign CS4 and QuarkXPress 8.

The specific focus of the benchmarks was efficiency in magazine and newspa-per design and production. This document presents results and analysis specific to the magazine publishing market; newspaper specific findings are presented in a separate document.

In addition to the research conducted specifically for this project, this report also draws upon an independently financed study and research report con-ducted by Pfeiffer Consulting, comparing previous releases of both products. (The complete report is available at the Pfeiffer Consulting Document Store http://pfeifferreport.com/store.)

For more information on the methodology of the benchmarks, please refer to the Methodology sidebar on page 3. For detailed information on hardware configurations, methodology, discussion of benchmarks and complete results, download the complete Adobe InDesign CS4 vs. QuarkXPress 8.0 Benchmark Report at www.pfeifferreport.com.

About Pfeiffer Consulting

Pfeiffer Consulting is a Paris-based, international research and consult-ing operation specializing in technology and media. Pfeiffer Consulting’s mission is to provide unique high-level, international market intelligence and strategic consulting for both content and technology providers.

Pfeiffer Consulting is the publisher of the Pfeiffer Report on Emerging Trends and Technologies, an online resource on trends in the technology and content industry, as well as numerous specialized studies and reports.

For more information on Pfeiffer Consulting’s reports and services, please visit www.pfeifferconsulting.com.

Major Findings

t InDesign CS4 offers a sophisticated environment for design and publishing that offers many features that are unmatched by the competition.

t In benchmarks conducted for this project, InDesign CS4 showed a clear productivity advantage over QuarkXPress 8.0 in many essential operations for the magazine publishing workflow.

t InDesign CS4 allows designers to hand off page designs to the Flash authoring environment, as well as create interactive SWF (Flash) and PDF documents directly from InDesign.

About Pfeiffer Consulting

t Pfeiffer Consulting is an independent technology research institute and consulting operation focused on the needs of publishing, digital content production, and new media professionals.

t Download the complete Adobe InDesign CS4 vs. QuarkXPress 8.0 Benchmark Report at www.pfeifferreport.com.

Pfeiffer Report • Benchmark Analysis

PfeifferConsulting

01001011

Adobe InDesign CS4 vs. QuarkXPress 8: Efficiency in Magazine Design and Production Technology, design and productivity

© Pfeiffer Consulting 2009

1 InDesign CS4 vs. QuarkXPress 8: Efficiency in Magazine Layout and Production

Comparing two mature page layout environments

Comparing InDesign and QuarkXPress is not an easy task; giving a fair, bal-anced evaluation of both environments is even more difficult, despite only focusing on one specific market segment, such as magazine production in the case of this study.

While both QuarkXPress and InDesign were designed for the same task (page layout) and use a similar basic approach (text and picture frames con-taining imported content, combined with graphic elements such as rules and boxes), the programs take very different roads to achieve certain tasks, and each one has some strengths that the other lacks: QuarkXPress, for instance, features a highly customizable hanging punctuation feature, but lacks the sophistication and efficiency of the text composition engine in Adobe’s prod-uct. InDesign CS4 allows the application of Photoshop effects such as bevel and emboss to graphic elements including texts and shapes, but lacks the possibility of applying basic filters to pixel images. And there is a long list of features that both programs share, but that are implemented in entirely differ-ent ways and offer different twists and options.

On the following page we analyze the approach of both applications to key aspects of the publishing process. Sidebars and illustrations throughout this document will provide productivity information and technical discussion of the key differentiating factors between the two page layout environments.

Major Points

t InDesign CS4 provides design options unmatched by the competition, and offers mature integration with the key applications for design and publishing, such as Photoshop CS4, Illustrator CS4, Flash CS4 as well as Bridge CS4.

t Based on benchmarks for this research, InDesign CS4 offers a clear productivity advantage in terms of object composition, image placement and management, repetitive text formatting as well as PDF export.

t The multimedia export features provided by InDesign CS4 are well suited for the production of interactive documents such as digital magazines.

Assignment-bas

ed

productivity ga

ins and saving

s

Pro

duct

ivit

y

mea

sure

s

Sta

ndar

d w

orkfl

ow

(Tim

e in

sec

onds

)

Pro

duct

ivit

y

mea

sure

s

InD

esig

n 2

.0

(Tim

e in

sec

onds

)

Tim

e sa

ved

over

stan

dard

wor

kflow

(sec

onds

)

Pro

d. g

ain

(%)

RO

I ge

nera

ted

(1 h

our

@$

10

0)

RO

I ge

nera

ted

(1 h

our

@$

20

0)

RO

I ge

nera

ted

(1 h

our

@$

30

0)

RO

I ge

nera

ted

(1 h

our

@$

40

0)

Main Magazine

Productivity as

signment

1412.02

523.06888.96

62.96%$24.69

$49.39$74.08

$98.77

Main Design P

roductivity ass

ignment

990.33503.67

486.6649.14%

$13.52$27.04

$40.56$54.07

Single Page Tab

le

190.8798.84

92.0348.22%

$2.56$5.11

$7.67$10.23

Double page Ta

ble

442.03177.75

264.2859.79%

$7.34$14.68

$22.02$29.36

Incremental pro

ductivity gains

(Return on inv

estment gener

ated by individ

ual operation)

Photoshop Roun

d-trip 20Mb

54.0034.64

19.3635.85%

$0.54$1.08

$1.61$2.15

Photoshop Roun

d-trip 40Mb

94.6658.66

3638.03%

$1.00$2.00

$3.00$4.00

Photoshop Roun

d-trip 80Mb

181.00123.34

57.6631.86%

$1.60$3.20

$4.81$6.41

Precision Posit

ioning EPS Grap

hic

138.3334.33

10475.18%

$2.89$5.78

$8.67$11.56

Simple Transpa

rency Effect

182.3342.33

14076.78%

$3.89$7.78

$11.67$15.56

Drop Shadow

122.3333.67

88.6672.48%

$2.46$4.93

$7.39$9.85

Export PDF

149.6731.33

118.3479.07%

$3.29$6.57

$9.86$13.15

ROI Projections

based on

incremental pro

ductivity gains

Time saved

(seconds)

Number of

occurences/we

ek

ROI generated

(1 hour @$100

)

ROI generated

(1 hour @$200

)

ROI generated

(1 hour @$300

)

ROI generated

(1 hour @$400

)

Photoshop Roun

d-trip 20Mb

19.36

20

$10.76$21.51

$32.27$43.02

Photoshop Roun

d-trip 40Mb

36

10

$10.00$20.00

$30.00$40.00

Photoshop Roun

d-trip 80Mb

57.66

5

$8.01$16.02

$24.03$32.03

Precision Posit

ioning EPS Grap

hic

104

20

$57.78$115.5

6$173.3

3$231.1

1

Simple Transpa

rency Effect

140

15

$58.33$116.6

7$175.0

0$233.3

3

Drop Shadow

88.66

10

$24.63$49.26

$73.88$98.51

Export PDF

118.34

20

$65.74$131.4

9$197.2

3$262.9

8

Total ROI gene

rated/week

$235.25

$470.49

$705.74

$940.99

Total ROI gene

rated/month

$940.99

$1,881.98

$2,822.97

$3,763.96

Total ROI gene

rated/year

$10,350.88

$20,701.76

$31,052.63

$41,403.51

ROI Projections

based on

assignment-bas

ed productivity

gains

Time saved

(seconds)

Number of

occurences/we

ek

ROI generated

(1 hour @$100

)

ROI generated

(1 hour @$200

)

ROI generated

(1 hour @$300

)

ROI generated

(1 hour @$400

)

Main Magazine

Productivity A

ssignment

888.96

5

$123.47

$246.93

$370.40

$493.87

Total ROI gene

rated/month

$493.87

$987.73

$1,481.60

$1,975.47

Total ROI gene

rated/year

$2,177.45

$4,354.90

$6,532.35

$8,709.80

Main Design P

roductivity Ass

ignment

486.66

5

$67.59$135.1

8$202.7

8$270.3

7

Total ROI gene

rated/month

$270.37

$540.73

$811.10

$1,081.47

Total ROI gene

rated/year

$2,974.03

$5,948.07

$8,922.10

$11,896.13

Single Page Tab

le

92.03

5

$12.78$25.56

$38.35$51.13

Double Page Ta

ble

264.28

5

$36.71$73.41

$110.12

$146.82

Total ROI gene

rated/month

$197.95

$395.90

$593.85

$791.80

Total ROI gene

rated/year

$2,177.45

$4,354.90

$6,532.35

$8,709.80

Assignment-based productivity gains and savings

Pro

duct

ivit

y

mea

sure

s

Sta

ndar

d w

orkfl

ow

(Tim

e in

sec

onds

)

Pro

duct

ivit

y

mea

sure

s

InD

esig

n 2

.0

(Tim

e in

sec

onds

)

Tim

e sa

ved

over

stan

dard

wor

kflow

(s

econ

ds)

Pro

d. g

ain

(%)

RO

I ge

nera

ted

(1 h

our

@$

100

)

RO

I ge

nera

ted

(1

hou

r @

$200

)

RO

I ge

nera

ted

(1

hou

r @

$300

)

RO

I ge

nera

ted

(1 h

our

@$

400

)

Main Magazine Productivity assignment1412.02

523.06888.96

62.96%$24.69

$49.39$74.08

$98.77

Main Design Productivity assignment990.33

503.67486.66

49.14%$13.52

$27.04$40.56

$54.07

Single Page Table

190.8798.84

92.0348.22%

$2.56$5.11

$7.67$10.23

Double page Table

442.03177.75

264.2859.79%

$7.34$14.68

$22.02$29.36

Incremental productivity gains (Return on investment generated by individual operation)

Photoshop Round-trip 20Mb

54.0034.64

19.3635.85%

$0.54$1.08

$1.61$2.15


94.6658.66

3638.03%

$1.00$2.00

$3.00$4.00


181.00123.34

57.6631.86%

$1.60$3.20

$4.81$6.41

Precision Positioning EPS Graphic

138.3334.33

10475.18%

$2.89$5.78

$8.67$11.56

Simple Transparency Effect

182.3342.33

14076.78%

$3.89$7.78

$11.67$15.56

Drop Shadow

122.3333.67

88.6672.48%

$2.46$4.93

$7.39$9.85

Export PDF

149.6731.33

118.3479.07%

$3.29$6.57

$9.86$13.15

ROI Projections based on incremental productivity gains

Time saved (seconds) Number of occurences/week ROI generated (1 hour @$100)ROI generated(1 hour @$200)

ROI generated (1 hour @$300) ROI generated (1 hour @$400)


19.3620

$10.76$21.51

$32.27$43.02


36

10

$10.00$20.00

$30.00$40.00


57.66

5

$8.01$16.02

$24.03$32.03

Precision Positioning EPS Graphic

104

20

$57.78$115.56

$173.33$231.11

Simple Transparency Effect

140

15

$58.33$116.67

$175.00$233.33

Drop Shadow

88.6610

$24.63$49.26

$73.88$98.51

Export PDF

118.3420

$65.74$131.49

$197.23$262.98

Total ROI generated/week

$235.25$470.49

$705.74$940.99

Total ROI generated/month

$940.99$1,881.98

$2,822.97$3,763.96

Total ROI generated/year

$10,350.88 $20,701.76 $31,052.63 $41,403.51

ROI Projections based on assignment-based productivity gains Time saved (seconds) Number of occurences/week ROI generated (1 hour @$100) ROI generated (1 hour @$200)

ROI generated (1 hour @$300) ROI generated (1 hour @$400)

Main Magazine Productivity Assignment888.96

5

$123.47$246.93

$370.40$493.87


$493.87$987.73

$1,481.60$1,975.47


$2,177.45$4,354.90

$6,532.35$8,709.80

Main Design Productivity Assignment

486.665

$67.59$135.18

$202.78$270.37


$270.37$540.73

$811.10$1,081.47


$2,974.03$5,948.07

$8,922.10 $11,896.13

Single Page Table

92.035

$12.78$25.56

$38.35$51.13

Double Page Table

264.285

$36.71$73.41

$110.12$146.82


$197.95$395.90

$593.85$791.80


$2,177.45$4,354.90

$6,532.35$8,709.80

EffectsEffectsEffects

InDesign CS4: Unique Design Dimensions For Page Layout

InDesign is the only page layout program that offers the ability to paste a design element into any kind of frame, allowing designers to crop any text or graphic element, the way they would do with an imported picture. This offers not only great creative potential but increased productivity. (In the example on the left, a complete, editable table has been pasted inside a round frame.)

InDesign CS4 not only supports transparency effects and drop shadows, but allows users to apply and combine a wide range of Photoshop effects (such as bevel, inner shadow and inner/outer glow) to graphic elements and text. All effects can be set individually for the stroke, fill and content of a selected element or group of objects, reducing the need for effects work in Photoshop.

InDesign and QuarkXPress: Key Technology Differences



Methodology

This report is based on technology analysis and market-specific productivity benchmarks conducted by Pfeiffer Consulting for Adobe Systems Incorporated. It also includes elements from independent research and technology analysis projects conducted by Pfeiffer Consulting.

Productivity Measures

Pfeiffer Consulting conducted extensive, market-specific productivity benchmarks comparing Adobe InDesign CS4 with QuarkXPress 8.0, focusing specifically on common tasks in newspaper and magazine publishing.

Nature of benchmarks: Experienced professionals performed segment-specific design assignments, defined in clearly repeatable steps and executed in a closely monitored way. To ensure real-world results, no scripting was used for any benchmarks.

Hardware: All benchmarks were conducted on a factory-configured Mac Pro workstation equipped with 4GB of RAM running Mac OS X 10.5.6. Benchmark systems were completely re-initialized prior to tests.

All statements in this report are factual and can be independently verified. For in-depth discussion of the benchmark methodology, system configurations, and comprehensive benchmark description and results, please download the complete “Adobe InDesign CS4 vs. QuarkXPress 8.0 Benchmark Report” at our website www. pfeifferreport.com.

Design efficiency: While basic design techniques are similar in both environ-ments, InDesign offers an essential design feature QuarkXPress lacks, the

“Paste Inside” menu command that lets users paste groups of objects inside pre-existing frames (see sidebar on previous page). QuarkXPress 8, on the other hand provides a sophisticated content tool that let users resize and rotate imported pictures without changing tools.Composition engine: InDesign clearly has the more sophisticated text com-position engine, offering a paragraph-based justification method and glyph-scaling as part of H&J (Hyphenation and Justification), as well as more sophis-ticated, dictionary-based hyphenation, yielding better-looking text composi-tion without manual adjustments, essential for efficient magazine publishing. Hanging punctuation support is much more sophisticated in QuarkXPress 8, but customizing pre-sets is complex for occasional users.Text handling: Beyond basic text handling features, similar in both applica-tions, InDesign offers a significantly more sophisticated style sheet architec-ture. Nested styles allow for efficient combination of paragraph and character styles. The program also offers GREP-based search and replace, and supports footnotes, a feature QuarkXPress still lacks. Conditional text and text vari-ables can also speed up InDesign publishing workflows. QuarkXPress, on the other hand, offers a Shared Content feature that allows to synchronize text and pictures between different layouts within the same project.Picture handling: Both programs support key file formats for design and page layout, including Photoshop, Illustrator and PDF files. Not surpris-ingly, support for Adobe file formats is clearly more mature in InDesign CS4. (QuarkXPress can handle some aspects of Photoshop files InDesign does not currently support, such as transparency-adjustment of individual layers, but does not support the complete range of layer types Photoshop can create, such as adjustment layers and layer masks, making it incompatible with many Photoshop files.)Application integration: InDesign CS4 benefits from the tight integration with other key applications of the creative and publishing workflow, including metadata support for placed images and file format integration between vari-ous applications. The program also includes Bridge CS4 for managing docu-ments and metadata of the creative and publishing workflow. QuarkXPress 8 supports drag-and-drop file placement from Bridge.Multimedia support: Both InDesign and QuarkXPress can create interactive documents that can be exported as web-ready SWF files for playback with the Flash Player. InDesign CS4 can also create XFL files that can be opened in Flash CS4, and exports a much wider range of interactive features to PDF than QuarkXPress does.The approach to interactivity between the two products varies significantly, though: users need to create specific “layout spaces” in a project depending on the desired output (print, interactive or web), while InDesign lets users add interactivity and hyperlinks to standard InDesign documents.

All texts and illustrations © Pfeiffer Consulting 2009. Reproduction prohibited without previous written approval. For further information, please contact [email protected] data presented in this report are evaluations and generic simulations and are commu-nicated for informational purposes only. The information is not intended to provide, nor can it replace specific productivity research and calculations of existing companies or work-flow situations. Pfeiffer Consulting declines any responsibility for the use or course of action undertaken on the basis of any information, advice or recommendation contained in this report, and can not be held responsible for purchase, equipment and investment or any other decisions and undertakings based on the data provided in this report or any associated docu-ment.Adobe, Acrobat, Illustrator, InCopy, InDesign, Photoshop, Flash, After EffecD, Fireworks and Version Cue are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries. Mac and Macintosh are trade-marks of Apple Computer, Inc., registered in the United States and other countries. OpenType and Windows are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. QuarkXPress is a registered trademark of Quark, Inc. in the United States and/or other countries. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Smart Guides in InDesign provide interactive positioning and dimensioning help during the page layout process. The impact of Smart Guides on productivity is considerable, as the benchmarks for this project show: in all tests, positioning elements using Smart Guides was over twice as fast as achieving the same result with QuarkXPress.

Productivity Impact of Smart Guides on Object PositioningTime in seconds. Shorter is better.

0 3 6 9 12 15

0 3 6 9 12 15

Align and arrangethree objects

at equal distance

Align objectwith two others

(horizontal/vertical)

Simple alignmentof two objects

3.67

8.04

4.62

10.71

5.65

13.25

QuarkXPress 8

InDesign CS4


InDesign CS4 vs. QuarkXPress 8: Efficiency in Magazine Layout and Production 3

Understanding the issues

Efficiency in magazine publishing depends on a variety of factors. Magazine design and production are very sophisticated domains, and tools for this mar-ket not only need to provide considerable creative latitude, but also must allow swift throughput for the repetitive tasks common in this field.

InDesign was conceived in the late nineties, almost a decade after the first generation of page layout programs. The program made a point of taking a fresh approach to some of the most basic tasks and requirements of the pub-lishing process, and added sophisticated controls and features to the basic page layout tool-set. While QuarkXPress has been extensively improved and rewritten over the past years, some of the basic limitations of the program remain. InDesign, for instance, has always offered layers on master pages (essential for efficient template creation, particularly in magazine publish-ing) while QuarkXPress only offers layers on the content pages, but not on masters; InDesign can place guidelines on layers, thus allowing them to be selectively masked, as well as copied and pasted, while QuarkXPress treats them as page-specific, independent from the layer architecture.

Productivity related to text handling

Similarly, text handling features, and in particular style-sheets, start off with the same core functionality in both programs, but Adobe has pushed the pos-sibilities of this essential formatting feature far beyond the scope provided by Quark’s options: As the productivity benchmarks for this research project

Major Points

t InDesign CS4 offers a more sophisticated and more efficient text composition engine, that includes support for character scaling as part of the H&J algorithm and provides more evenly spaced text without requiring manual fine-tuning.

t InDesign CS4 provides a significantly more mature and sophisticated implementation of master pages than QuarkXPress 8, including hierarchical master pages and layers on master pages. These features are essential in magazine publishing since they allow users to structure publications for efficient production.

t The style sheet architecture provided by InDesign CS4 is more robust and more powerful than its competition. This can significantly increase productivity in magazine production.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Applyparagraph style

and character styleto 5 paragraphs

(individualparagraphs)

Applyparagraph style

and character styleto 5 paragraphs

(contiguous text)

3.63

29.79

9.75

36.17

Productivity of Nested Styles Compared With Manually Applying Style SheetsTime in seconds. Shorter is better.

QuarkXPress 8

InDesign CS4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Apply4 consecutive

styles to 6 sidebarsin magazine spread(multiple selection)

Apply4 consecutive

styles to 6 sidebarsin magazine spread(indivdual selection)

Apply6 consecutive

styles to article 15.42

19.68

63.66

7.02

63.66

4.74

Productivity of “Apply Next Style” vs. Manually Applying Parapgraph StylesTime in seconds. Shorter is better.

QuarkXPress 8

InDesign CS4

Efficient Text Handling in Magazine Production

The Nested Styles feature in InDesign allows automated use of character styles within a paragraph style sheet, significantly speeding up repetitive formatting tasks. The chart on the left shows the time necessary to format 5 paragraphs containing an opening phrase in bold face, using Nested Styles or manually applying the character styles. The chart on the right illustrates

the productivity linked to automatically applying a set of linked styles used in repetitive formatting of magazine articles (such as headline, byline, introduction, body copy, etc.) to an imported text with the time necessary to apply the styles one by one. InDesign also allows this feature to be applied to multiple text frames (such as sidebars in a magazine spread) in one step.

Efficiency in Magazine Publishing



Hierarchical Master Pages

Master pages are one of the features where InDesign provides a level of sophistication that goes well beyond its competitor, and offers magazine publishers powerful ways of structuring templates that can be very easily adapted and customized.

Hierarchical master pages essentially allow a magazine designer to structure page templates in a way that lets shared changes ripple through many variations of a design. Thus a designer can start by creating a basic page grid, and then use this as master page for a series of sections. Each section master page can in turn become the starting point for variations of the section; changes made to one master page, like the basic page grid, will ripple through each master page based on this design. (By comparison, since QuarkXPress supports only one level of master page, a change in design shared by several master pages would need to be applied manually for each occurrence.)

In addition, unlike QuarkXPress, InDesign supports layers not only on body pages, but on master pages as well, allowing magazine designers to create extremely sophisticated and efficient page templates, for example by grouping text and illustrations on layers that are unlocked and editable during production, while protecting fixed page elements on locked layers. The same page design can even offer several column configurations on different layers, that can be made visible depending on the requirements of a specific page.

clearly document, features such as Nested Styles and the “Apply Next Style” command can significantly speed up repetitive production tasks in magazine production and other publishing workflows, particularly since they can be applied to groups of selected text boxes in one operation.

InDesign offers two more unique text handling features the competition lacks: Conditional text allows for easy switching between different versions of a text, useful for instance when managing local editions of a publication, or different versions of the same document; text variables can be used to manage repetitive text elements, and update them automatically across a layout docu-ment when changes are made.

QuarkXPress 8 has an edge with some text-related features: Hanging punctuation offers considerably more customization options than the Optical Margin Alignment feature in InDesign, and the possibility of editing kern-ing pairs (which now also supports OpenType fonts) is highly valued by some publishers. As for the Shared Content feature, it is useful for sharing and syn-chronizing elements between different layouts in a QuarkXPress project file.

Productivity related to image handling

We have already seen that both programs support most of the popular pixel and vector image formats. But how do InDesign and QuarkXPress compare in terms of placing and managing imported images?

Both applications allow text and image files to be dragged onto a page from a Mac OS or Windows folder, or from an Adobe Bridge window, making multiple file placement easier. Nevertheless, file placement is one of the areas where InDesign CS4 provides a very significant productivity edge over its competitor, by allowing multiple files to be placed in a single operation: the feature is both easy to use and sophisticated, and even allows the creation of a frame at the exact proportion of the placed image, as well as the placement of several images as a grid of frames like a contact sheet.

Likewise, it is possible to place all or selected pages of a multi-page PDF or Illustrator CS4 file in a single operation. Finally, InDesign allows the image-fitting options for frames to be specified prior to placement, meaning that a page layout can be set up in a way that imported images are immediately scaled proportionately as well as cropped or reduced by a pre-set amount, a feature QuarkXPress lacks.

QuarkXPress 8 innovated with a new picture content tool that allows imag-es to be scaled, rotated and cropped in a single operation. This feature, clearly more efficient than InDesign’s current tools, streamlines the fine-tuning of sophisticated page layouts; it is regrettable that Quark has not paired it with the image-placement and object-handling features InDesign offers.

Composition Stress Test: The Importance of a Sophisticated Composition EngineInDesign’s composition engine is significantly more sophisticated than its competitor, supporting paragraph-based hyphenation (QuarkXPress only calculates hyphenation on a single-line basis), as well as glyph-scaling as part of the H&J (Hyphenation and Justification) algorithm, a clear advantage for type-setting documents with narrow columns.The example on the left shows the same text, typeset on a 6-column grid on an A4 page using exactly the same font, font-size, leading and H&J settings. The text typeset with InDesign (left illustration) appears much more evenly spaced, a result achieved by authorizing glyph-scaling in the basic H&J setting, a feature QuarkXPress currently lacks.

Mr.S h e r -l o c kHolmes, who wasusually very latein the mornings,save upon thosenot infrequentoccasions whenhe was up allnight, was seatedat the breakfasttable. I stoodupon the hearth-rug and picked upthe stick whichour visitor hadleft behind himthe night before.It was a fine, thickpiece of wood,bulbous-headed,of the sort whichis known as a“Penang lawyer.”Just under thehead was a broadsilver band nearlyan inch across.“To James Mor-timer, M.R.C.S.,from his friendsof the C.C.H.,”was engravedupon it, with thedate “1884.” Itwas just such astick as the old-fashioned familypraitioner usedto carry—digni-fied, solid, andreassuring.“Well, Watson,what do youmake of it?”Holmes was sit-ting with his backto me, and I hadgiven him no signof my occupation.“How did youknow what I wasdoing? I believeyou have eyes inthe back of yourhead.”“I have, at least, awell-polished, sil-ver-plated coffee-pot in front ofme,” said he. “But,tell me, Watson,what do youmake of our visi-

tor’s stick? Sincewe have been sounfortunate as tomiss him andhave no notion ofhis errand, thisaccidental sou-venir becomes ofimportance. Letme hear youreconstru theman by an exami-nation of it.”“I think,” said I,following as far asI could the meth-ods of my com-panion, “that Dr.Mortimer is a suc-cessful, elderlymedical man,we l l - esteemedsince those whoknow him givehim this mark oftheir apprecia-tion.”“Good!” saidHolmes. “Excel-lent!”“I think also thatthe probability isin favour of hisbeing a countrypraitioner whodoes a great dealof his visiting onfoot.”“Why so?”“Because thisstick, though orig-inally a very hand-some one hasbeen so knockedabout that I canhardly imagine atown praitionercarrying it. Thethick-iron ferruleis worn down, soit is evident thathe has done agreat amount ofwalking with it.”“Perfely sound!”said Holmes.“And then again,there is the‘friends of theC.C.H.’ I shouldguess that to bethe SomethingHunt, the localhunt to whose

members he haspossibly givensome surgicalassistance, andwhich has madehim a small pres-entation inreturn.”“Really, Watson,you excel your-self,” said Holmes,pushing back hischair and lightinga cigarette. “I ambound to say thatin all the accountswhich you havebeen so good asto give of my ownsmall achieve-ments you havehabitually under-rated your ownabilities. It may bethat you are notyourself luminous,but you are a con-duor of light.Some peoplewithout possess-ing genius have aremarkable powerof stimulating it. Iconfess, my dearfellow, that I amvery much in yourdebt.”He had never saidas much before,and I must admitthat his wordsgave me keenpleasure, for I hadoften been piquedby his indiffer-ence to my admi-ration and to theattempts which Ihad made to givepublicity to hismethods. I wasproud, too, tothink that I hadso far masteredhis system as toapply it in a waywhich earned hisapproval. He nowtook the stickfrom my handsand examined itfor a few minuteswith his nakedeyes. Then with

an expression ofinterest he laiddown his ciga-rette, and carryingthe cane to thewindow, helooked over itagain with a con-vex lens.“ I n t e r e st i n g ,though elemen-tary,” said he as hereturned to hisfavourite cornerof the settee.“There are cer-tainly one or twoindications uponthe stick. It givesus the basis forseveral deduc-tions.”“Has anythingescaped me?” Iasked with someself-importance.“I trust that thereis nothing of con-sequence which Ihave overlooked?”“I am afraid, mydear Watson, thatmost of your con-clusions wereerroneous. WhenI said that youstimulated me Imeant, to befrank, that in not-ing your fallacies Iwas occasionallyguided towardsthe truth. Notthat you areentirely wrong inthis instance. Theman is certainly acountry prai-tioner. And hewalks a gooddeal.”“Then I wasright.”“To that extent.”“But that was all.”“No, no, my dearWatson, not all—by no means all. Iwould suggest, forexample, that apresentation to adoor is morelikely to comefrom a hospital

than from a hunt,and that when theinitials ‘C.C.’ areplaced before thathospital thewords ‘CharingCross’ very natu-rally suggestthemselves.”“You may beright.”“The probabilitylies in that direc-tion. And if wetake this as aworking hypothe-sis we have afresh basis fromwhich to start ourconstruion ofthis unknown vis-itor.”“Well, then, sup-posing that‘C.C.H.’ doesstand for ‘Char-ing Cross Hospi-tal,’ what furtherinferences maywe draw?”“Do none suggestthemselves? Youknow my meth-ods. Apply them!”“I can only thinkof the obviousconclusion thatthe man has prac-tised in townbefore going tothe country.”“I think that wemight venture alittle farther thanthis. Look at it inthis light. Onwhat occasionwould it be mostprobable thatsuch a presenta-tion would bemade? Whenwould his friendsunite to give hima pledge of theirgood will? Obvi-ously at themoment whenDr. Mortimerwithdrew fromthe service of thehospital in orderto start a praicefor himself. We

know there hasbeen a presenta-tion. We believethere has been achange from atown hospital to acountry praice.Is it, then, stretch-ing our inferencetoo far to say thatthe presentationwas on the occa-sion of thechange?”“It certainly seemsprobable.”“Now, you willobserve that hecould not havebeen on the staffof the hospital,since only a manwell-establishedin a London prac-tice could holdsuch a position,and such a onewould not driftinto the country.What was he,then? If he was inthe hospital andyet not on thestaff he couldonly have been ahouse-surgeon ora house-physi-cian—little morethan a senior stu-dent. And he leftfive years ago—the date is on thestick. So yourgrave, middle-aged family prac-titioner vanishesinto thin air, mydear Watson, andthere emerges ayoung fellowunder thirty, ami-able, unambitious,absent-minded,and the possessorof a favourite dog,which I shoulddescribe roughlyas being largerthan a terrier andsmaller than amastiff.”I laughed incredu-lously as SherlockHolmes leaned

Mr. Sherlock Holmes, who was usually very late in the mornings, save upon those not infrequent occa-sions when he was up all night, was seated at the breakfast table. I stood upon the hearth-rug and picked up the stick which our visitor had left behind him the night before. It was a fine, thick piece of wood, bulbous-headed, of the sort which is known as a “Penang lawyer.” Just under the head was a broad silver band nearly an inch across.

“To James Mor-timer, M.R.C.S., from his friends of the C.C.H.,” was engraved upon it, with the date

“1884.” It was just such a stick as the old-fashioned family practitio-ner used to carry—dignified, solid, and reassuring.

“Well, Watson, what do you make of it?”Holmes was sit-ting with his back to me, and I had given him no sign of my occupation.

“How did you know what I was doing? I believe you have eyes in the back of your head.”

“I have, at least, a well-polished, silver-plated cof-fee-pot in front of me,” said he.

“But, tell me, Wat-son, what do you make of our visi-tor’s stick? Since we have been so

unfortunate as to miss him and have no notion of his errand, this acci-dental souvenir becomes of impor-tance. Let me hear you reconstruct the man by an examination of it.”

“I think,” said I, following as far as I could the methods of my companion, “that Dr. Mortimer is a successful, elderly medical man, wel l-esteemed since those who know him give him this mark of their appreciation.”

“Good!” said Hol-mes. “Excellent!”

“I think also that the probability is in favour of his being a country practitioner who does a great deal of his visiting on foot.”

“Why so?”“Because this stick, though originally a very handsome one has been so knocked about that I can hardly imagine a town practitioner car-rying it. The thick-iron ferrule is worn down, so it is evident that he has done a great amount of walk-ing with it.”

“Perfectly sound!” said Holmes.

“And then again, there is the ‘friends of the C.C.H.’ I should guess that to be the Some-thing Hunt, the local hunt to whose members he has possibly given some sur-gical assistance, and which has made him a small

presentation in return.”

“Really, Watson, you excel your-self,” said Holmes, pushing back his chair and light-ing a cigarette. “I am bound to say that in all the accounts which you have been so good as to give of my own small achievements you have habitually underrated your own abilities. It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light. Some people without possess-ing genius have a remarkable power of stimulating it. I confess, my dear fellow, that I am very much in your debt.”He had never said as much before, and I must admit that his words gave me keen pleasure, for I had often been piqued by his indifference to my admiration and to the attempts which I had made to give publicity to his methods. I was proud, too, to think that I had so far mas-tered his system as to apply it in a way which earned his approval. He now took the stick from my hands and examined it for a few minutes with his naked eyes. Then with an expression of interest he laid down his ciga-rette, and carry-ing the cane to the window, he looked over it again with

a convex lens.“ I n t e r e s t i n g , though elemen-tary,” said he as he returned to his favourite corner of the settee. “There are certainly one or two indications upon the stick. It gives us the basis for several deduc-tions.”

“Has anything escaped me?” I asked with some self-importance.

“I trust that there is nothing of con-sequence which I have overlooked?”

“I am afraid, my dear Watson, that most of your conclusions were erroneous. When I said that you stim-ulated me I meant, to be frank, that in noting your fal-lacies I was occa-sionally guided towards the truth. Not that you are entirely wrong in this instance. The man is certainly a country practitio-ner. And he walks a good deal.”

“Then I was right.”“To that extent.”“But that was all.”“No, no, my dear Watson, not all—by no means all. I would suggest, for example, that a presentation to a doctor is more likely to come from a hospital than from a hunt, and that when the initials ‘C.C.’ are placed before that hospital the words ‘Charing Cross’ very naturally sug-gest themselves.”

“You may be right.”“The probabil-ity lies in that direction. And if

we take this as a working hypothe-sis we have a fresh basis from which to start our con-struction of this unknown visitor.”

“Well, then, sup-posing that ‘C.C.H.’ does stand for ‘Char-ing Cross Hospi-tal,’ what further inferences may we draw?”

“Do none suggest themselves? You know my methods. Apply them!”“I can only think of the obvious con-clusion that the man has prac-tised in town before going to the country.”

“I think that we might venture a little farther than this. Look at it in this light. On what occasion would it be most probable that such a presentation would be made? When would his friends unite to give him a pledge of their good will? Obviously at the moment when Dr. Mortimer withdrew from the service of the hospital in order to start a practice for himself. We know there has been a presentation. We believe there has been a change from a town hos-pital to a coun-try practice. Is it, then, stretching our inference too far to say that the presentation was on the occasion of the change?”

“It certainly seems probable.”

“Now, you will

observe that he could not have been on the staff of the hospital, since only a man well-established in a London practice could hold such a position, and such a one would not drift into the country. What was he, then? If he was in the hospi-tal and yet not on the staff he could only have been a house-surgeon or a house-physi-cian—little more than a senior stu-dent. And he left f ive years ago—the date is on the stick. So your grave, mid-dle-aged family practitioner van-ishes into thin air, my dear Watson, and there emerges a young fellow under thirty, ami-able, unambitious, absent-minded, and the possessor of a favourite dog, which I should describe roughly as being larger than a terrier and smaller than a mastiff.”I laughed incredu-lously as Sherlock Holmes leaned back in his settee and blew little wavering rings of smoke up to the ceiling.

“As to the latter part, I have no means of check-ing you,” said I, “but at least it is not difficult to find out a few par-ticulars about the man’s age and pro-fessional career.” From my small medical shelf I took down the

InDesign CS4 QuarkXPress 8



No application is an island

InDesign offers a high level of integration not only with other key applica-tions of the creative and publishing workflows, but with the wide array of technologies and standards developed and supported by Adobe, ranging from the ubiquitous PDF format to the metadata architecture XMP, as well as sup-port for XML, not included in the current release of QuarkXPress. The obvi-ous immediate benefit is of course tighter integration with applications such as Photoshop CS4, Illustrator CS4 and Flash CS4, as well as Bridge CS4. Quark has clearly recognized the need for tighter integration with Adobe’s tools: version 8.0 of its flagship application supports file import from Bridge, and now offers some support for native Illustrator files, but it lacks the per-vasive support for XMP, and cannot offer the metadata integration that ties together all Adobe applications.

The high level of integration provided by Adobe’s tools has some immedi-ate benefits in terms of productivity. One of the best examples for this is the new Links panel introduced with the latest release of InDesign. Managing linked files is essential in efficient page layout and production, and the level of sophistication provided by InDesign CS4 goes well beyond any other page layout application on the market, including previous releases of InDesign.

The highly customizable Links panel not only makes it much faster to locate linked files and to display a wide variety of image attributes such as color space, resolution, ICC profiles, creation and placement date, it can even display metadata such as the author of a placed image. Most importantly, it

Major Points

t InDesign CS4 offers tight integration with other key graphics applications, including sophisticated support for native file-formats, metadata support and wide-ranging support for document-export to PDF, SWF and the Flash authoring environments.

t InDesign CS4 provides a significant productivity advantage for handling images and text. Multiple-file-placement accelerates the production process, and the new Links Panel allows easy access to images and increases efficiency in managing placed files.

t PDF export from InDesign CS4 is faster and more mature than with QuarkXPress 8.0

t By supporting XFL export, InDesign CS4 documents can be seamlessly integrated into the Flash authoring environment.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Relink5 images

to differentfolder

16.46

63.13

Efficiency in Managing Placed ImagesTime in seconds. Shorter is better.

QuarkXPress 8

InDesign CS4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Import3 images,

adapt frames toimage proportions

Importsingle image,

adapt frame toimage proportions

6.85

14.69

18.93

50.36

Efficiency Impact of Proportional Image PlacementTime in seconds. Shorter is better.

QuarkXPress 8

InDesign CS4

Productivity in Image Import and Management

The new Links Panel in InDesign CS4 goes well beyond QuarkXPress in terms of features and productivity for managing placed files. The chart on the left shows the time necessary to relink 5 images placed in a page layout to a different folder, significantly faster in InDesign CS4.

Proportional image placement is another productivity-enhancement introduced with InDesign CS4: upon image import, the program automatically creates a box at the exact proportions and size of the imported picture, an operation that takes several steps in QuarkXPress 8.

Managing Contentand Production



Interactive Magazines Are Here

Both QuarkXPress and InDesign offer support for interactive documents, allowing users to insert hyperlinks, buttons, page transitions and, in Quark’s case, some simple animation effects.

In terms of number of interactive features and options, QuarkXPress 8 is clearly ahead of the current release of InDesign; yet, from a magazine publisher’s perspective, InDesign CS4 is in several ways the more appropriate tool for creating interactive magazines and digital replicas.

First of all, InDesign does not handle print and interactive documents as separate entities: an interactive magazine is created by adding features to an already existing print document, while Quark forces users to create and manage both independently, but supports shared content between the two.

The other key difference is that QuarkXPress 8 almost exclusively targets export to SWF (executable Flash files) for interactive documents, and only exports limited interactvity to PDF. By comparison, InDesign CS4 offers wider support for interactive PDF features.

Finally, InDesign CS4 can not only export SWF files (which aren’t editable in Flash) but also supports XFL export, that produces files that can be handed off to a Flash specialist to add special effects and sophisticated interactivity. QuarkXPress currently lacks this ability.

speeds up everyday production tasks significantly, by allowing operations such as relinking placed images to files in a different folder, or to relink placed images to files with the same name but a different file extension.

Preflighting

Paradoxically, InDesign CS4 and QuarkXPress 8 take both a very similar and a completely different approach to detecting potential production problems. InDesign’s preflighting, available since its first release, was always geared towards the user, not the production expert.

Easy to use, it was also somewhat limited in scope in older versions of InDesign, and has been significantly expanded in the CS4 release. The Live Preflight functionality spots errors as they occur, and allows users to find and correct them easily. Initially, the program uses a default preflight profile, but creating new ones is a simple process.

QuarkXPress, on the other hand, did not offer any preflighting in earlier releases, but introduced the powerful but somewhat unwieldy Job Jackets fea-ture in QuarkXPress 7. Job Jackets are very sophisticated, and share some characteristics with preflight profiles in InDesign CS4.

Practically speaking, setting up Quark’s Job Jackets requires a considerable learning effort, and the program does not provide default settings that would allow the average user to preflight a document without creating the appropri-ate Job Jacket beforehand.

PDF support

One of the key differences between QuarkXPress and InDesign in terms of PDF support is that Adobe’s product uses the native Adobe PDF libraries for PDF creation, while QuarkXPress relies on a third-party conversion engine compatible with PostScript.

As a result, support for different versions of the PDF standard is more sketchy in QuarkXPress: InDesign CS4 supports the full range of PDF/X standards and variants, while QuarkXPress 8.0 only supports PDF/X-1a:2001 and PDF/X-3:2002.

And while QuarkXPress can create sophisticated interactive projects, only hyperlinks are exported to PDF files; InDesign can also export buttons, as well as page transitions.

Finally, in the benchmarks conducted for this project, PDF export was sig-nificantly slower from QuarkXPress 8.0 than from InDesign CS4: Quark’s program took two to six times longer to export identical documents to PDF/X-1a than InDesign.

0 50 100 150 200

0 50 100 150 200

Exportcompositedocument

to PDF/X-1a

Export 147-pagetext-only

documentto PDF/X-1a

27.27

176.43

18.51

36.78

PDF ExportTime in seconds. Shorter is better.

QuarkXPress 8

InDesign CS4

Live Preflight / PDF Export

Illustration on the left: InDesign CS4 offers a Live Preflight feature that detects errors as they occur. The program is shipped with a default preflight profile that can be customized to detect a great variety of different document aspects for both print and digital media output, including overset text, wrong color space or aspects such as TrueType outlines contained in an

OpenType font. Chart on the right: PDF export is significantly faster with InDesign CS4 than with its competitor. InDesign CS4 offers PDF export based on the original Adobe PDF libraries, while QuarkXPress 8 relies on a third-party conversion engine compatible with PostScript, and offers a more restricted range of PDF export options.



InDesign CS4 and QuarkXPress 8: Key Technology Differences

Feature InDesign CS4 QuarkXPress 8

Creative Design Options

t Graphic effects (emboss, glow, etc.) on graphic objects reduces need for graphic effects work in Photoshop or Illustrator. t “Paste Inside” allows sophisticated graphic design compositions without using other applications. t Support for transparency in Photoshop, Illustrator and PDF documents allows sophisticated integration of graphics from other applications.

t Picture Effects lets users apply non-destructive image effects and filters to pixel images in common file formats (lacks support for Photoshop files).

Design and Workflow Efficiency

t Drag and drop file placement for text and image files from operating system folders and Adobe Bridge.

t Multiple file placement allows multiple images or multiple pages in PDF or Illustrator documents to be placed in one operation. t Proportional Place automatically creates an image frame at the proportions of the placed file.

t Picture content tool allows images to be cropped, scaled and rotated without changing tools or using keyboard commands.

Advanced Page Layout Functionality

t Hierarchical Master Pages allow the creation of sophisticated templates, that support simple update of shared characteristics between linked master pages. t Layer-specific guides allow the creation and switching between layout grids on the same page template. t Existing InDesign documents can be placed inside a page layout, and are updated as changes occur.

t Composition Zones allow parts of a project to be shared by several projects and/or group of users. t Shared Content allows elements and settings to be shared among different layouts in one project. t Grid Styles makes management of multiple page and item grids easier.

Composition

t Text composition engine supports glyph scaling as part of H&J (Hyphenation and Justification). t H&J can work with entire paragraphs, as well as line by line. t Dictionary-based hyphenation algorithm offers two levels of hyphenation. t Optical margin alignment provides simple, story-level hanging punctuation.

t Sophisticated, customizable hanging punctuation can be integrated into style-sheets. t Editable kerning tables can be customized, saved and shared by user.

Text-Related Features

t Support for nested style-sheets speeds up repetitive formatting operations. t Support for conditional text simplifies managing document variations. t Support for text variables speeds up repetitive document creation and adaptation.

PDF Support

t Support for PDF/X-1a: 2001, PDF/X-3: 2002 t Support for transparency in PDF files

t Comprehensive support for PDF file variations, including PDF version 1.3 to 1.7 t Support for PDF/X-1a: 2003, PDF/X-3: 2003, PDF/X-4:2008 t Support for multimedia features in PDF files

Preflighting

t Live Preflight spots errors as they occur, based on a default profile. t Simple creation of custom profiles that cover a wide range of document properties.

t No default preflighting mechanism. t Job Jackets can be used for preflighting but require a non-trivial set-up procedure.

Image Handling t Links Panel gives users direct access to a wide range of image attributes, metadata and file information and allows batch relinking of files with the same file name but different extensions.

File Compatibility

t Support for a variety of file formats including Photoshop, Illustrator, PDF, TIFF, JPEG, PNG (among many others). t Access to image layers, alpha channels and paths in Photoshop files.

t Support for transparency information in Illustrator and PDF files. t Support for Layer Comps in Photoshop files. t Support for Photoshop adjustment layers, text layers, layer masks and layers containing effects.

t Access to transparency of individual layers in compatible multi-layered Photoshop files.

Multimedia Integration

t Export to SWF files for Flash Player, support for hyperlinks in PDF files.

t Export to XFL files for Flash CS4 authoring. t Support for interactive PDF files including hyperlinks and interactive options, such as buttons and page transitions.

t Interactive authoring and basic animation features (for export to SWF files). t Support for web-page creation.

Note: this table is a quick overview of some of the key technology differences between InDesign CS4 and QuarkXPress 8. It focuses on unique features in each product, not on comparison of core functionality shared by both programs, such as basic text formatting or graphics tools.



Documents

Adobe InDesign CS4 vs. QuarkXPress 8: Efficiency in ... › files › Adobe_InD_QX_Mag_Final.pdfpage layout, including Photoshop, Illustrator and s. Not surpris-ingly, support for