# Help needed with Quark shortcuts



## wicky (Jan 25, 2004)

I graduated from Pagemaker to InDesign (which I really like). The problem is; I've got a job interview in a couple of days, and they are joined at the hip to QuarkXpress. 

I need a downloadable and/or printable list of Quark's shortcut keystrokes. Any version would be good.... just something to get me started, and stop me looking like a complete novice!

Thanks in advance.


----------



## bobw (Jan 25, 2004)

http://www.printanddisplay.ie/new_designDen_shortcutsQuar.htm


----------



## wicky (Jan 25, 2004)

Beauty!!

Do you happen to know what version of Quark these shortcuts are for? .... or do they apply to all?

Regards
Wicky


----------



## bobw (Jan 25, 2004)

Should work with most versions if not all.


----------



## MacNEO (Jan 26, 2004)

On the topic of Quark shortcuts: anyone know how to over-ride the hide\show dock command so the step and repeat shortcut will work in Quark? I think they are the same command.


----------



## Natobasso (Feb 3, 2004)

I wish I knew that last question myself. I am really missing being able to use Command+Option+D Step and Repeat.


----------



## wicky (Feb 3, 2004)

I ask this with complete sincerity....

At the risk of sounding a bit dull, and of course, not meaning to revive a tired debate.... why on earth do people still use Quark? Am I missing something?

I really do get it. I understand that in Quark's day, it was "the best thing ever"; light years ahead of Pagemaker. I also understand that the first InDesign offering was a bit slow and clunky (not great for our industry). But, saying that, I've been using InDesign for a good while now, and returning to using Quark seems so.... well, antiquated, I guess.

I mean it's not a bad program (great typographic control, etc.), but InDesign just seems to have so much more funcionality (transparency, layer blending, etc).

I've been using both at work, side by side, and I can't see what the fuss is all about. You can even set InDesign up With Quark keystrokes. 

I've got the crib sheets for both of them in front of me, and as far as I can see Quark doesn't do 'anything' that InDesign can't (but InDesign can do loads that Quark can't). So why do people keep insisting on Quark? Is it just a lack of inovative thinking on the part of lazy designers, or am I really missing something?


----------



## Natobasso (Feb 3, 2004)

You are missing something. It's lazy companies, not lazy designers. 

For me it's the price of changing that's prohibitive. I am a freelance designer and can't afford InDesign at the moment. 

There's a lot of money invested in Quark on the part of companies, and InDesign has some printing bugs of its own that printers are still trying to get their heads around, so as far as being the "killer app" InDesign has its own work to do. However, with all the built in features, InDesign is turning out to be more responsive not only as an app, but I imagine anyone could beat Quark in the customer service arena.


----------



## wicky (Feb 3, 2004)

Lazy companies... that's a fair answer. 

I've heard people talk about printing issue's before with InDesign, but I've never experinced them. I always export as PDF(4) for print, and it comes back from the printers ok. What problems are you talking about?

I'm going to try and talk my new employers into switching to InDesign, but could do with knowing any problem areas that I haven't encountered myself.


----------



## Natobasso (Feb 3, 2004)

I think the biggest problems happen with layers and transparency issues when printing InDesign files. I have heard that it's more "rich" features when not properly translated can give a print production staff fits. This is just from what I have read on printing/graphic newsgroups. 

You can check the web for more reviews on InDesign and/or call your favorite/most used printers for advice as well. 

I am finding these days that the printers I work with are really hating Quark. It's files are loaded with unncessary information and don't print well. This is a huge change from 5 years ago when printers used to sigh with relief when I said I had a fully collected Quark 4 file. 

I think InDesign can even process Quark files which will make your company's transition even easier. 

Cheers!


----------



## gdekadt (Feb 5, 2004)

QuarkXPress (QXP) vs InDesign (ID)... 

I'm still stuck with QXP for now because, although its very basic, ridiculously overpriced and has some really frustrating bugs, I find it (v4.1) very productive. 

[Now thanks to Suitcase X1 and ClassicDraw XT (VERSION 2.2) I can use QXP 4 effectively in Mac OS X (Panther) with far fewer font issues in a mixed Mac OS environment and with screen redraw that compares favourably with using QXP when booted into Mac OS 9]

The problem for me and many users in publishing is that we need to get things done, and get them done quickly and reliably [mmm] week-in, week-out. There's a well founded mistrust of new software generally. Consider the transparency features of ID2 (and Illustrator 9 & 10) that caused text and vector art to become bitmapped only where interacting with transparency - leading to inconsistent output that could not be easily rectified. I've not yet found whether or not these issues have been fixed in CS versions... . [Funny 'cos transparency support in PostScript is something that Adobe themselves were short-sighted about.] 

Over the past few years I've learnt and been told of many work-arounds and best practices to avoid problems at the printing stage. This gives me a basis for problem free RIP-ready PDF output. I've learnt a lot of things from trial & error but now I'm effectively on my own and need to be able to guarantee the people that pay my wages that things will print without errors. With turnaround times short and no-one else really involved before a job rolls off the press - software change is a critical issue. 

To move to ID I need between two weeks and a month with relaxed deadlines and reduced workload - to get my application knowledge and keyboard shortcuts up to speed. (Plus I'll new hardware 'cos InDesign 2 is very sluggish on my old G4). Then throw in freelancers with in-depth knowledge to backup us up and a change of heart from the art director  (who provides a lot of pages for us in QXP) and I'll be able to push the boss harder for the change. For now I'll have to continue bitching about QXP, testing out ID and just chipping away. 

By this time next year I'm sure the move to InDesign will make clear business sense to even the most intransigent. There are too many advantages to list but better design tools, improved productivity (cf QXP6, on newer hardware), workgroup functionality and XML support jump out as prime examples. Then I will be really happy. Because I don't like QuarkXPress. Because I do like InDesign. Because I don't want to be stuck using legacy systems any longer than absolutely necessary. I think the problems I talk about are the case for many. You mustn't knock work-flows that flow. We can't all be as cutting edge as we'd like.

So you people who are using ID carry on - there is great need for a push forward to raise the knowledge base. Find the problems and their solutions or workarounds, then we'll all be better off.

Anyone who has time to invest should now be learning ID not QXP.

[BTW  Nathaniel, InDesign will not open QXP v6 docs, only QXP v4/5 docs and even then only with varying degrees of (in-)accuracy]


----------



## Natobasso (Feb 5, 2004)

Thank you for your thoughts and the clarification at the end of your post.


----------



## wicky (Feb 5, 2004)

Thanks v.much to both of you for that. 

I don't generally subscribe to taking sides in any of these 'one vs. the other' software debates (at least not without good reason), but InDesign just feels so much more up to date than Quark, so it's very good to get clear articulate reasons why other designers still put Quark first.

Either way, it would seem like Quark's days are numbered.

BTW: InDesign can be setup with Quark shortcuts, so the transition for both you and your freelancers should be almost seemless. The extra funcionality in InDesign is available via the standard Adobe keystrokes, so they're already second nature to anyone with Illustrator and/or Photoshop experience.

Time = money, and for me, the speed on older machines is undoubtedly the biggest issue (and one that Adobe should make a point of addressing ASAP), but InDesign is a bigger package, and so I suppose it's more demanding on resources. 

I recently completed a fully illustrated 128 page A4 product catalogue (on a G4 Powerbook), taking full advantage of InDesigns new features, and i didn't run into any problems with either speed or transparency. However, some people clearly have, so obviously Adobe still have some work to do before they're in a position to oust Quark as the industry standard.

I'm only referring to InDesign 2.02 here; does anybody have experience with the CS version? Have these issue's been taken care of yet?


----------

