Compare Exegenix Conversion Solutions to Other Methods

Very High

• Immune to variations in style codes or formatting
• Single, well-documented, easily generated input data format
• Each document is analysed individually

Extremely High

• Human editor manually adjusts for every inconsistency

Low to none, depending on:

• Complexity of script
• Failure due to variations in uses of style codes
• Multiple data formats

Extremely High

• Always generates markup to a single, robust DTD, designed for transformability

None

• hand tagging is entirely "manual repair"
• Process is slow and subject to human error

Varies

• Depends on complexity of script and consistency of input data

Fast

• ECS Engine gets text flow and structures predominantly correct
• Quality Assurance phase streamlined with unique GUI

Slow

• All structures are subject to manual cut and paste or re-keying

Medium

• Scripts will automate much of the conversion
• Input data variations can result in time-consuming manual QA and repair in XML editor, referencing source document for comparison

Very High

• One data type or many, Client-Server application can handle volumes
• Minimal training required
• Lightweight hardware requirement on client side
• Transformable output format suitable for any type of document

Poor

• Additional human resources will require training to handle complexities of XML and multiple application interfaces, depending on input data types

Varies

• One data type scales well
• New data types, scales very poorly, like starting from scratch

Low Cost

• Standards-based XSLT script to transform Exegenix output to your XML DTD
• Elementary script to generate PS/PDF from diverse input formats
• Configuration minimized with supplied workflow tools, intuitive QA interface GUI, all deployed by supplied client-side installer

Moderate to High Cost

• Productivity must be optimized via customized authoring environments, which must be developed and deployed
• Workflow must be managed
• Quality assurance requires close scrutiny, comparing source data to XML output

High Cost

• Extensive work required to build scripts, usually via a proprietary programming language
• Technician must install and configure scripting engine, and devise quality assurance and workflow management methodology

Low Cost

• Quality Assurance in standard, intuitive, high-performance GUI

Extremely High Cost

• Entire process is human intervention, therefore very costly with high skills requirements
• Outsourced conversion often requires manual Quality Assurance and repair of material received from conversion vendor

High Cost

• Maintenance of scripts over time
• Development of new scripts for new data sources
• Multiple scripting engines for multiple data types
• Quality Assurance performed via close scrutiny of XML, comparing to source data, and manual correction in XML authoring tool, with knowledge of DTD specifics

No Cost

• Exegenix only charges for quality-approved output

Moderate to High Cost

• XML editor client application licenses per-seat, plus maintenance costs
• Workflow management and analysis software costs

High Cost

• Costly scripting engine licenses and maintenance

Pay per kilocharacter of output with volume discounts; human labor kept to a minimum through carefully designed workflow and quality assurance interfaces

Expensive manual labor and per-seat software license fees (in-house), or higher per-kilocharacter cost (third party)

Expensive script engine license fees, regardless of overall volume; skilled developer and integrator resources required; ongoing maintenance of scripts; annual support fee; labor-intensive quality assurance