MadCap Flare for Windows

User Reviews

• As good as it 'currently' gets...

  ozy1ozyJune 1, 2014

  Pros

  Very flexible

  Cons

  Steep learning curve, Masses of documents to wade through. Not enough updates for those 'little gremlins' in the software.

  Summary

  I've used most of the tools around - some good some bad. Madcap Flare is pretty good but only by comparison. Ask yourself, why do we have to spend such a long time learning a software package? Why do we need expensive long training? Windows Server removed masses of menus from their software and managed to simplify the installation process by boatloads. Simply put, it is about time software was designed around the user rather that modifying the user to operate the software.

  ---

• Much better products available

  WakeRunnerJuly 21, 2011

  Pros

  It does work with many workarounds, oddities etc.

  Cons

  The editor is very mickey mouse... and this is where you do 99% of your work. Does not work well with large topic files, very slow... even after you set turn off several default options that they will tell you slows it down.

  Summary

  I switched to Flair from Robohelp 2002 version (before the company was sold 3 or 4 times) and it works much better then the 2011 version of Flair. I am evaluating Help &#38; Manual now and so far it looks much better than Flair. Does not have even basic options like remember window size for CHM help files. Very complicated to use and there are many parts of it that just do not work correctly.<br /><br /><span class='notifyMsg'> Updated </span>on Dec 14, 2012<p/>Update: After reviewing Help &#38; Manual I decided to go with it... It's much better than Flair and cheaper, win-win! It beats Flair in every category, easier to use, more features and less bugs.

  ---

• Flare: Easy migration and powerful features

  AzgerJuly 2, 2009

  Pros

  Good user interface, suport for all the common formats of source and final files. Excellent context-sensitive help and user documentation. XML and (soon ) DITA. Plain honest HTML files that you can get int and hack if needed.

  Cons

  I bit buggier than I like a V3.0 to be, but nothing that renders it unusable. Expensive support contracts (although upgrades are included) Lack of information about stylesheet editing.

  Summary

  It seems that Adobe cannot be bothered to invest in RoboHelp these days, keen as they are to push rich media solutions in proprietary file formats. This is making software writers run screaming from their products (Don't worry - there is no-one listening at Adobe, so they will not be upset by this harsh and perhaps unfounded criticism.). Madcap to the rescue. Using Flare 3.1 I was able to migrate an entire 3-volume software doc set to Flare in a couple of days. The results were so impressive that I'm now moving the sources out of Adobe FrameMaker and into Flare's excellent topic-based authoring environment where I quickly attained the ability to single-source and reuse content. Building context-sensitive Webhelp or CHM files (and the PDF for print) is a breeze. Flare's snippet feature is very useful for reusing content and when used with its conditionalization features make the production of repurposed documents very easy to manage. Every investment I've made in tuning the templates, stylesheets, skins, and master pages has been a pleasure to learn and implement. It has made the import process progressively easier and faster. Flare helps you refine your sources so that imports are faster with each revision. Today I imported a 300+ page manual from FrameMaker directly into Frame and built a Webhelp volume in a couple of hours with no build errors. One of Flare's best features is its ability to build directly to PDF and XPS if you install the necessary Microsoft Word 2007 plug-ins. Cost-conscious writing departments will appreciate the opportunity to avoid those expensive Acrobat licenses. Translation vendors also appreciate Flare's support for the translation process and it is easy to find translation houses that can capitialize on your content investment in Flare. OK, so it's never all a bed of roses, as anyone using documentation tools will attest. However, for my 20+ years in the technical writing process I have had few experiences where all the Pros of a tool far outweighed the Cons. Only a few things really bug me in Flare V3.1. For example, Flare does not update its content library when you add new topic. You must exit and reload the project to see all recently added topics in the content library. Also, the handling of graphics is clumsy because you do not have the ability to enter numeric values for resizing graphics. If you want a desktop solution for producing multiple output media from single sources, and also to maximize your reuse capabilities, Flare is an excellent option.

  ---

• Developers tool

  PJ890June 27, 2007

  Pros

  Cons

  not for the novice. C++, Visual Basic feel. we wasted weeks trying to evaluate this tool. impossible. AuthorIT has a better workflow and ease of use.

  Summary

  ---

• Solid product that is a great alternative to RoboHelp.

  VBGODMay 4, 2006

  Pros

  I really found this product to be useful. So, here are the good things... The interface is ultra-clean and very straight-forward. It pays homage to Visual Studio 2005. At times, it feels as if you're using a Microsoft product (That's a compliment). I always knew were everything was, and that's without reading a manual. So the program is also very intuitive. Finally, the wizard that helps you choose the type of project that you're creating is very useful. The entire product feels over-designed, with no holes or gaps. Overall, this is a great product.

  Cons

  It's a bit pricey. I'd feel more comfortable with a $400 price tag. It's still cheaper and better than RoboHelp, but RoboHelp is still the industry standard.

  Summary

  ---

• Show reviewsHide reviews
• Rate it