Talk:Adobe InDesign

Pro-Wikipedia Bias in Screenshot
The screenshot used seems unprofessional. Perhaps a more neutral example would be more appropriate?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.97.67 (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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."

What? 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.

redundancy
There seems to be redundancy between this and InDesign.

Merged. -Peter

Wikipedia is not a link farm
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? |examine 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 24.23.3.169 (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)

Upset users.
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)
 * Good call. –-  kungming·2 | (Talk ·Contact) 14:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

too brief
This article is way too brief, for such a big complicated important program.--69.87.201.217 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.--69.87.193.53 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)
 * If the Photoshop article is acceptable, why not use it as a model for an expanded InDesign article? Homeboy (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

file formats
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.--69.87.193.53 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 am updating the File format section. Please check if suitable. MyOptimism (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

New Screenshot
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. 112.213.135.101 (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just updated the screenshot to CS5 on Mac OS X. No silly scrawling in this one! AussieNickuss (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot updated = Adobe InDesign CS5 running on Windows 7 x86 = with Wikipedia Design --Umar1996 (talk) 14:43, 5 October 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 84.45.219.185 (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the policy "What Wikipedia is not", but this is intended to be a summary, nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.219.185 (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

InDesign CS6
My name is Ferry Roland, What About The Indesign Features? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandhelper (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Middle Eastern Versions
Why is the entire article about the Middle Eastern versions? --128.151.80.182 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Wikipedia is a work in progress. So, it is probably because no one has yet had time or resources to write anything else. Do you?


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adobe InDesign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070604210516/http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressmaterials/pdfs/ID_Server_CS2_FAQ.pdf to https://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressmaterials/pdfs/ID_Server_CS2_FAQ.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Adobe InDesign 2020 on macOS Catalina.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Adobe InDesign 2020 on macOS Catalina.png

InDesign CS5.5
InDesign CS5.5 was released between 5 and 6

This article is trash
The tone and content of this article is amateurish and tacky. Why lead with all this crap about companies rebuffing offers and codenames and inconsequential minutia? Wiki sucks 2603:6011:402:A26A:A8AD:8F70:C463:5CFB (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

PostScript driver app? Plug-in architecture never mentioned?
I worked on the InDesign Developer Technologies team at Adobe. This:

"However, the Postscript printer driver for InDesign 1.0 was an external app that tended to acquire frequent corruption problems, requiring periodic reinstallation. Copies of InDesign 1.5 were usually given away when it was found that a host of bugs had to be corrected. By InDesign 2.0, the temperamental printer driver was embedded in the main software. The 'kernel' architecture was never mentioned again."

...is completely wrong, as far as I know. The PostScript printer driver was never a separate application, and InDesign's plug-in architecture has been mentioned frequently (by me, in my books, if nothing else) since then. I do not know of any large-scale giveaway of InDesign 1.5.

The implementation of InDesign's transparency features and font subsetting did cause problems--both because of bugs and also due to the large number of obsolescent PostScript interpreters in use in printers at the time. Adobe completely misunderstood the market adoption of printers/workflows capable of supporting the current PDF features of the time.

The InDesign team designed InDesign's architecture--a plug-in manager and hundreds of plug-ins--to be easily updated, customized, and enhanced at any time. This scheme fell afoul of Adobe's accounting practices relative to SEC regulations (this has to do with what does and does not constitute a "major release" of a software product). The modular architecture remains superior to the monolithic architecture of most large software products, in my opinion.

--Olav Martin Kvern 2601:602:8180:ABD0:A536:D368:EEC5:26B3 (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

spinning off and relocating information
There is too much information on the top of this article, so it is difficult for readers to get the essential knowledge. And also, a lot of versions of this software are posted on the article, which may include too much details and make it seems like a development log. Maybe we should removing these excessive details and relocating some paragraphs on the top of the article as well to make it looks more concise.

Add a section of “Adobe InDesign release history” to move the relationship between the “Adobe PageMaker” and “Adobe InDesign”, also more details about how Adobe declined Quark’s offer to buy their company. As to its new competitor “Shuksan”, maybe it is not that relevant to our topic.

The third paragraph of the article is talking about its document format. From my perspective, maybe there is too much information to introduce every version of “Adobe InDesign”, always adding some new technology to make their software better. Therefore, I reckon to delete some of these details or organize them into a graph to make it clear and concise, then add them into a new section “each version’s new function”, if you do believe they are essential information for this software.

What’s more, about the last paragraph of this article, introduce how “Adobe InDesign” is bundling with other software of Adobe in Mac OS X. For me, this part introduces some details that is somehow negative statement about this software. And again, it contains too much information about versions released in different years of this software. Maybe they can be put into “see also” section, just the same as “Criticism of Creative Cloud”.

The section of “Internationalization and localization” only has the InDesign Middle Eastern editions and there is too much useless information about this version in this article. So it will be better if this section could be spun off to another stub. 303-zhan (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)