RE: Year 2000 manual introduction

Subject: RE: Year 2000 manual introduction
From: "Humbird, Len - CFC" <Humbird -dot- Len -at- cfwy -dot- com>
To: "'TECHWR-L (E-mail)" <TECHWR-L -at- LISTS -dot- RAYCOMM -dot- COM>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:53:19 -0800

Now really, out of 50 manuals and thousands of pages of content, who is
going to care - let alone READ - an introduction that apologizes for the
inconsistent grammatical tenses, writing styles and page layouts? Unless the
introduction introduces and hand-holds the reader to the CONTENT, then it's
not worth the paper its written on.

The problem you describe is consistent in virtually any tech pubs department
I've ever been in. Management changes. Writers get laid off. Standards
change. Shit happens.

The most you should do to standardize everything is to get the front covers
to look the same. And be sure the bibliography is up to date so everyone
knows what documents are out there. You've got more important things to do
than to pretty everything up.

-----Original Message-----
From: Doyle, Lindsay [mailto:lindsay -dot- doyle -at- funb -dot- com]
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2000 11:09 AM
Cc: Doyle, Lindsay
Subject: Year 2000 manual introduction

"This manual, and all application area specific manuals, were compiled over
a period of fifteen months. During that time, documentation standards and
lab management practices were revised, resulting in variations throughout
the manuals. These variations include, but are not limited to, " and now
I'm stuck. Any feedback, including revisions of the above, are

Previous by Author: Need referral for document management software
Next by Author: RE: screen captures - PSP is just fine for me.
Previous by Thread: Re: Year 2000 manual introduction
Next by Thread: RE: Year 2000 manual introduction

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads