Adobe InDesign

Adobe InDesign may have a steep learning curve and advanced interface, but the functionality it provides is more advanced that Publisher.

I used Publisher briefly for some brochures and flyers, and it is a good software for simple, quick solutions that do not require a lot of design. It lacks when taking on complex ideas or projects.

We use both in our company. Adobe InDesign for those more carefully considered, important design jobs. Canva for throwaway design jobs like flyers, newsletters, etc.

Adobe InDesign is a much different platform for document creation and publishing compared to Adobe PhotoShop. With Photoshop your goal is to start with or create an image and make all modifications and adjustments within that program. InDesign takes those finished images and verbiage to create a working document for publishing to the web, print or email. We as a company use both to achieve a professional final product.

These mentioned softwares are great but also limiting. I like working on Adobe Illustrator but it's not meant to create page layouts while working on multiple pages.

Adobe InDesign is definitely better structured and perfectly organised. I am a huge supporter of creativity in the communication field, yet I believe in the importance of balance and design. Adobe InDesign proves to be stronger than its competitors because it leaves room for inspirational creativity yet organised in the most effective and attractive way.

I've only ever used Quark but not for years. But InDesign is a much better product.

While Quark stalled out, InDesign continued to improve its product features year after year. Also, the integration with other industry standard software (Photoshop and Illustrator) is a no-brainer.

Until the development of InDesign, I was a faithful user of QuarkXPress. I knew Quark like the back of my hand. Once I decided to make the change, I realized how robust InDesign was compared to "old faithful." It took a little time to learn the nuances. Now, I can't imagine using anything else. I love how well all the Adobe products work together. It really does increase productivity!

Quark used to be the go-to product for print layout design but I feel they really fell behind in the race against Adobe. The clunky user interface and what I felt were often limited options for adjusting fonts, tracking, kerning, leading etc really made it cumbersome, and editing images with masks and layers was just difficult. I have actually been known to skip using PowerPoint in favor of designing a presentation in InDesign when I really want to have granular control of a design or layout, sizing it to the same as a PPT slide and exporting for presentation as a PDF. Works with clickers in any conference I've been to and definitely helps elevate the design in ways others programs haven't been able to for me.

Quark used to be used much more. Adobe InDesign is now the preferred layout software for publishers. Canva is not as robust and does not have the same functionality.

I have previously used Quark Xpress, but as Adobe InDesign became the leader for professional designers, I transitioned to [Adobe] InDesign. I find Adobe InDesign a lot easier to work with. I have tried Affinity Publisher, but I have not [gotten] very far with trying it out. I was surprised that it could not open an InDesign file. I will have to try it again as it is way cheaper than [Adobe] InDesign and I understand now [that] it can open idml files.

InDesign is basically the default goto for publication assembly in our industry. Anything else is clunky or has inadequate tools by comparison. It's the industry gold standard.

I have used proprietary composition web applications at other publishers, and I have used Quark (which is less powerful/feature-rich) and LaTeX (which is great for what it does but is not right for all projects). I prefer InDesign for its universality. It can be used on just about any book project and accommodates a variety of stylings as varied as your imagination.

So basically, we just use Word Docs, generated PDFs from them, and combined them all into the reader. We decided to move to InDesign, because we were working with a graphic designer and it made a lot more sense to have an entire rebrand that read and felt differently. InDesign helps us to create an entirely new product, rather than generating more of the same.

Adobe Illustrator and QuarkXPress are great but also very limiting. I personally love illustrator but it's not meant to create page layouts when working on multiple pages and I'm used to working with QuarkXPress because of printers in the past but a majority of the printers have all upgraded to InDesign.

I'm biased because Adobe InDesign is my favorite, I think that might be somewhat related to the ease of working with text, which I enjoy. I also just enjoy the ease of use of the software compared to other Adobe Creative Suite softwares. Adobe InDesign seems to be the easiest one for people to learn and use in a short period of time.

We can use AI to make catalog or sellsheets too, but it can not compete with [Adobe] InDesign, AI is useful for single page stuff, but it's a bit heavy while carries more pages and more links. While we are doing some artworks, we prefer to use AI, but once it has few more pages, we prefer to use [Adobe] InDesign.

We use Adobe PhotoShop in tandem with Adobe InDesign when processing or manipulating images. It's the gold standard for working with images and getting everything just right. There is no other product on the market I can think of that compares with Adobe PhotoShop and if anyone says there is, they might be lying to themselves.

Microsoft products do not match the aesthetic tools that [Adobe] InDesign offers, cannot support the customizable options available for export, and do not produce documents with as high a degree of accessibility. That said, they do have their place in collaboration in a team- I'd consider Office to be the first step and [Adobe] InDesign to be the final product.

The other software I listed are not specifically made for layout. Maybe the closest option is Photoshop. I personally find Photoshop more intended for image editing than layout creating. In the architectural field, it is not unheard of for students or practitioners to use Photoshop for Layout. I now find this counter-intuitive, the file size Photoshop increases tremendously and handling many pages can be challenging. For these reasons, I would choose InDesign as my go-to software for reports and portfolios, as well as presentations.

There aren't even any worthy of mentioning. There is an open-source Scribus, or Microsoft solutions like Word and Publisher. But those shouldn't be used in the same breadth as InDesign. Are you sending a document to a professional press? You use InDesign. I really do wish there was some market options here but the fact is that right now, Adobe InDesign is it.

Adobe InDesign is much more intuitive to use, and is set up better for beautiful design presentations.

All Adobe products are great for their specific use cases. InDesign is great for us at Legal Books Distributing because we create annual editions of books and InDesign is an AMAZING book creating tool. Once you get the hang of using these tools, your life can become much easier!

Adobe InDesign allows for quicker, simpler, and more powerful manipulation of images and text. Photoshop, granted is not for text editing, has weak text tools. Illustrator, granted is not for pixel-based image editing, can be weak for combining text and images in one file. PowerPoint makes everything take multiple clicks and has weaker tools that make changes take too long and be annoying to make.

Publisher and Quark both work, but they don't play well with Adobe products, which makes you waste a lot of time converting Illustrator and Photoshop files into bitmaps for use in them. This can lead to issues with image quality, on top of wasting time and energy. The similarity and familiarity of InDesign menus and toolbars for experienced users of Illustrator, Photoshop and other Adobe products speeds up the learning time.