I had the option of doing the Bar side in Quark or Adobe Indesign, I picked Quark for a change and I thought Quark had better manipulation with shapes than Indesign. In the end it was fine but I think Indesign would be easily because Quark had a terrible grid system which made placing and alignment of bar codes etc. difficult. Also the shape manipulation was the exact same if not worse than Indesign plus Quark crashed on me a total of two times which Indesign hasn't yet with me.
So after making the right size box 6 in by 4 in, I used text content tool to make boxes for text. And picture content tool to add in images like the recycling one > file import, click picture than re-size by playing with the box. Again measurements and general good judgment was a must. And as always trying to nail the fonts and their sizes were a trial and error process. Most of the font was Arial, and Cambria.
To stroke boxes, I clicked the box > frame > changed the point of the width of the box. That came in handy for making the bar codes. At first I had no clue how to do a bar with that thickness. I found the line tool and made lines with the correct measurement/placement but they still weren't thick enough. So eventually I clicked them > frame > changed width to 2 pt for the vertical bars on the top and 4 pts for the horizontal thicker bars. For the little bars on the bottom I got creative and used "|" on the keyboard, so 12 pt font for the bigger lines and 8 pt for the smaller line and than I just copied and pasted it to make the correct pattern and it looked perfect.
The bar side of the bind-in card was definitely simple compared to the other side of the card, but it still took careful precision and playing around, especially with Quark a program I'm even less familiar with than In Design. In the end, it looks very similar to the actual card, but I still believe Adobe Indesign is a better program. Sorry Quark but if your going to crash on me you will remain on my bad list!
The color side of the Bind-In Card in Quark followed the exact same steps as InDesign. It was easier and faster because I wrote down all the fonts I used and measurements. So, it mainly was inserting the data back in and adapting my skills towards a different program which is similar to the Adobe one. Please read the rationale for the Indesign one, the main characteristics that were different was the use of the picture and text content tools. However, I still do believe Indesign is a better program because it did not crash on me, while Quark did at least once on both sides of the bind in card. Quark also looks more simpler as shown by the small tool bar compared to Indesign but instead it's more of a pain. There is no easy access font bar in quark and the line tool does not automatically straighten the lines, stroking a picture is also harder (under frame instead of stroke). All in all, Indesign was easier and had more tools that were more user-friendly.