QuarkXPress vs. Adobe InDesign
Since QuarkXPress came on the scene in the late 1980s, it has dominated the graphics industry as the page layout application of choice for nearly everyone from designer to publisher. The lack of real competition in the market bred complacency and arrogance within Quark, Inc. The lack of customer service and support for the product has long been a complaint of users, as were the shortcomings that plagued the application itself. Version incompatibilities, poor support for the PDF platform and the application’s reliance on third-party XTensions for features were constant sources of grumbling.

A couple of years ago the tide began to turn for Quark. Adobe, a software developer with a history of innovation in the design industry and a finger on the pulse of the graphic professional, announced InDesign. Born in the tradition of feature-rich Adobe software, such as Illustrator and flagship application, PhotoShop, InDesign offered a versatile alternative to QuarkXPress that came with many of the features Quark users relied on along with some new features that made it attractive to frustrated graphics pros.While InDesign lacks certain features, such as the ability to save to HTML, differing page sizes within a single document, or automatically adding pages as a story is typed or edited, InDesign has some real advantages.

Though Quark has added much-requested multiple undos to its later releases, the implementation is so poor that many actions are not undoable and many of those that are block other actions. InDesign offers a real implementation of multiple undos that just works.

InDesign’s intuitive user interface, which is familiar to users of other Adobe apps, is a refreshing alternative to Quark’s often clumsy and sometimes confusing controls.

InDesign was the first to offer full-resolution preview to imported images, and while Quark has finally added it to its features, Quark’s preview is far from the smooth
performance of its InDesign counterpart.

PDF issues have plagued Quark for years. Exporting to PDF format in previous versions required a tremendous hassle and
often bore disappointing results. Even with
improvements to Quark’s export-to-PDF functionality, this process can take twice as long as with InDesign; not surprising considering that the PDF technology originated with Adobe.

Other InDesign features of merit include nested Style Sheets (allowing automatic Drop Caps or applying multiple styles to a single paragraph), a Separations Preview palette (which allows a designer to preview a representation of each plate before sending the job to the printer), and a Story Editor (which links edited text to the story in the layout).

Some of QuarkXPress’ newest features lack luster. The recent Synchronized Text palette is clumsy and can’t handle anchored objects. The Table Tool is short on features and cannot flow a table across columns or pages. Printing issues abound.

Despite InDesign’s advantages, Quark’s long-standing dominance in the field made it hard to unseat. Design departments have been procrastination migration to OS X while waiting for Quark to catch up. Now that version 6.0 has brought XPress into the OS X fold, many are reluctant to abandon it for Adobe’s alternative. Graphics professionals must also consider their service bureaus and commercial printers when choosing tools and many in the industry have been conservative in their adoption of a relatively
new application.

However, Adobe has bundled InDesign in its award-winning Creative Suite along with PhotoShop, Illustrator, and GoLive (Adobe’s web design application). More and more printers and service providers are adding InDesign, and the PDF workflow, which InDesign incorporates well, is an option offered by most commercial printers. Adobe’s history as a developer gives every indication that future releases of the application will continue to meet designers’ requests.

Professionals contemplating the decision between these two applications must weigh their options and examine their unique circumstances. However, InDesign’s features and potential future tip the scales in Adobe’s favor.

Learn more about QuarkXPress features.

Learn more about InDesign features.