ADOBE INCOPY VS WORD CODE

The great problem is I can’t convince my clients to monthly subscribe to InCopy (even costing U$ 5) to do seasonal jobs. It makes no sense to include InDesign and InCopy expecting that the same person will use both. Most of time the writer, who could actually use InCopy, is my client. InDesign along with InCopy suppose at least two people working on same job. In fact, I never need to use InCopy myself at all. As a designer (not writer), I never need to use InDesign and InCopy at same time. InCopy is a great collaboration tool between two or more people.īut the way Creative Cloud subscription is going, InDesign is a powerful tool to me, but InCopy is totally USELESS. We need a word processor app dedicated to InDesign. And I think Adobe is best qualified to solve it. For decades, I have searched for a solution. But I lay out several periodicals - all using Word files created by PHDs who haven't a clue how Word works. This might seem trivial to ID users who don't create long repetitive documents or periodicals. Force-applying styles in ID risks losing any local formatting that needs to be preserved, like italicize scientific names. Often authors have copied strings of text from non-Word sources and the original formatting refuses to strip out without saving as RTX. Sometimes you can fix these things by saving the text as RTX (or DOC instead of DOCX) from Word, but that doubles the number of text files to store - unnecessarily complicated.

ADOBE INCOPY VS WORD CODE

to remove all the rookie techniques employed by so many Word users, to remove all the mysteriously bogus code that creates frustrating local formatting. Here's what I wish InCopy could do: Take MS Word file and make them fully compatible with InDesign. I can appreciate InCopy's capability of linking multiple authors.

Adobe incopy vs word