|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adobe InDesign article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
Pro-Wikipedia Bias in Screenshot
The screenshot used seems unprofessional. Perhaps a more neutral example would be more appropriate?
not natively compatible
"Because CS2 has code tightly integrated with the PPC architecture and hence not natively compatible with the Intel processors used in Macs starting from 2006, porting these products is a huge endeavor."
WTF? There have been Windows/X86 versions of InDesign since 1.5 or earlier.
Clearly, the original comment refers to the need to convert the Macintosh code.
There seems to be redundancy between this and InDesign.
I know "Wikipedia is not a link farm," but I thought the recent pruning of external links went quite a bit too far. A lot of those seemed pretty useful. Do others agree? the pruning - Thomas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tphinney (talk • contribs).
- Yes, I looked at the old list and I think a lot of what's there is both useful and appropriate.00:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)
- I was the one who pruned the links - many of these links can be found easily using a Google search and do not shed much light on InDesign and do not help users who actually want to find out more about InDesign - many of them are just commercial sites. Feel free to restore some links that are relevant, but before the pruning, there were almost twenty external sites. That's too much - and not needed. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 23:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a citation for "This decision has upset many Intel Mac early-adoptors, especially since Adobe initially announced it would be first with a complete line of Universal Binary products?" I can't find anything about any announcement or verification of either of these claims after a g-search. =Sjledet 11:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is way too brief, for such a big complicated important program.--18.104.22.168 00:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- As a user, I am willing to write something about the features of InDesign - perhaps along the line of the Photoshop article. What exactly, do you think should be added? –- kungming·2 (Talk)
- Well, I imagine this program has about 1000 features. And this article basically mentions none of them, tells us nothing about what the program does or how it does it. Is this program truly a totally generic, indistinguishable DTP program? It just seems like an appropriate, well-written article would be very long, thorough, and detailed.--22.214.171.124 22:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles are not user manuals, so there is no need to cover every each and single function of the software. However, a reasonably extensive summary of the features should be provided indeed.--Kellerpm (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Many readers will be coming to this article for advice about accessing InDesign data files. Can any versions of ID create any native internal-format data files that can be read by any other programs? If so, please give complete details, so that people without ID can have some clue about how to access such files.--126.96.36.199 22:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
InDesign can export PDF documents, but I'm not aware of any other software (Quark perhaps) that can read the native format... Average users will not find too many .indd files floating around because they tend to just be used in design and printing. Crocadillion 04:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I just changed the screenshot to the lastest vesion (CS3 running in OSX), hope no one minds... NeoRicen 14:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't mind, but I wonder why people (and not just you) are so enthusiastic about updating screen shots in this way? The article is, or should not be, about "InDesign CS3, the version available today", but should be about the software and its history, all versions. What is to be gained with this rush to update the screen shot? Notinasnaid 14:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well I just figured since the program has been updated the screenshot should too, I mean the icon was updated. Also people who don't have the program will see the article and the screenshot will be of the version that's available for them. Current owners of past versions don't need a screenshot because they have the program and a screenshot of an old version would be useless to someone looking to buy. NeoRicen 01:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's a strong argument, though the idea that Wikipedia is a buyer's guide is somehow disturbing (if unavoidable). So long as the same argument is not used to remove information about older versions from the article. Notinasnaid 07:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't older screen shots exist in the article in the section that talks about versions (presuming there is such a section)? It could be argued that the images are as helpful as the text in this kind of situation. Also as a Mac user, I find it novel and interesting to see Adobe software on windows... Crocadillion 04:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
What is with the current screenshot? It looks absolutely shocking with the "Wikipedia Rocks!" scrawled across it. Also, it's a screenshot of the Windows version, not exactly representative of the average userbase of InDesign. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
History of versions
Has anyone considered adding a table showing screenshots of the history of versions and significant changes, sort of like you get in some computer magazines? List_of_Ford_Taurus_models was the example I was using. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)