Is there any danger in opening an unstructured document in structured Framemaker?

Question

I know that it's not a good idea to open a structured FrameMaker file in the unstructured FrameMaker interface, and that there's a warning about this when you try.
What's come up for us however is whether there's any problem with people using the Structured FrameMaker interface to edit unstructured files.
We have a machine set up for people who are not expert or highly skilled with FrameMaker, and since we have both structured and unstructured documents, the question is whether to leave it set as the structured interface, or the unstructured interface. They're just making small content edits in most cases, for anything more involved they ask me.
So:
If it's set to unstructured:
If they open an unstructured document, all is well.
If they try to open a structured document, they will see the warning. I can tell them what to do if they see it. (This might mean telling them to change to structured, or just to give me that file to edit instead.)
If it's set to structured:
If they open a structured document, no problem.
If they open an unstructured document however -- is there any danger if they edit it that way? Will saving from structured FrameMaker change anything about the file?
In the latter case, opening unstructured in structured Frame, there's no warning, it just opens with a blank structure view window, if they even open that window.
I have to imagine that Adobe separated the two interfaces for a reason, but possibly it has more to do with just not needing all of the resources like XML and DITA menus when you're in unstructured.
I realize that the real answer is not to let people unskilled with FrameMaker use it to edit documents, but this is the way things are for the moment. If it's set to unstructured, they'll have to switch over in order to edit structured files, and then be sure to remember to switch back. Leaving it set as structured in some ways seems the best choice, but only if it won't damage unstructured files that way.
Thanks

Answer 1

timezoned wrote:
I know that it's not a good idea to open a structured FrameMaker file in the unstructured FrameMaker interface, and that there's a warning about this when you try.
What's come up for us however is whether there's any problem with people using the Structured FrameMaker interface to edit unstructured files.
We have a machine set up for people who are not expert or highly skilled with FrameMaker, and since we have both structured and unstructured documents, the question is whether to leave it set as the structured interface, or the unstructured interface. They're just making small content edits in most cases, for anything more involved they ask me.
So:
If it's set to unstructured:
If they open an unstructured document, all is well.
If they try to open a structured document, they will see the warning. I can tell them what to do if they see it. (This might mean telling them to change to structured, or just to give me that file to edit instead.)
If it's set to structured:
If they open a structured document, no problem.
If they open an unstructured document however -- is there any danger if they edit it that way? Will saving from structured FrameMaker change anything about the file?
In the latter case, opening unstructured in structured Frame, there's no warning, it just opens with a blank structure view window, if they even open that window.
I have to imagine that Adobe separated the two interfaces for a reason, but possibly it has more to do with just not needing all of the resources like XML and DITA menus when you're in unstructured.
I realize that the real answer is not to let people unskilled with FrameMaker use it to edit documents, but this is the way things are for the moment. If it's set to unstructured, they'll have to switch over in order to edit structured files, and then be sure to remember to switch back. Leaving it set as structured in some ways seems the best choice, but only if it won't damage unstructured files that way.
Thanks
As Matt notes, the extra structured stuff in the interface may be confusing to users familiar with unstructured FM. However, it will also be confusing when unstructured FM users try to find and use the paragraph and character catalogs, and some other unstructured features that are perfectly usable in structured FM, but are not immediately visible in the structured interface.
One way to improve and simplify the FM environment for users who are able to edit text, but shouldn't be manipulating other tools, is to customize the interface. Search Google for terms like "customizing framemaker" without quotes. Recent FM releases feature the ExtendScript ToolKit, which offers new ways to customize FM, in addition to those in the older methods of modifying the maker.ini and configui files. One option if you follow this path would be to create custom Windows icons that call startup scripts which then call FM. Before the script launches FM, it can copy specified configuration and ini files into the user's environment, so that when FM starts up, it's got just what you design it to have. A simple approach here would be customize unstructured FM's interface to have only the minimum set of menu items and other things you specify, and launch unstructured FM. An icon could be named for the user, like SallyJonesFM, or for the task, like FMUnStrEditing.
I'm sure some folks on the forum have taken an approach like this for their users, and can offer some advice from their vast experience.
HTH
Regards,
Peter
Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices