Re: Text is bad: Was Ideas in Motion

Subject: Re: Text is bad: Was Ideas in Motion
From: "Jason A. Czekalski" <topsidefarm -at- mva -dot- net>
To: TECHWR-L digest <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:14:30 -0800

Tony Markatos: said:

Every graphical procedure documenting technique (like data flow
diagrams) is
based on the principle that you can not effectively use a synchronous
technique (text) to document asynchronous information.

I know I'm going to sound like a broken record, but this is not an
either/or issue. Some folks seem to want to take it that direction, but
it just won't go. This is an issue of when each (text or graphics) is
appropriate.

In another post I used the example of disassembly/reassmbly as a good
example for using a graphic. This is an example of synchronous
information that is best conveyed by a combination of graphics supported
by text. An issue on manufacturing equipment that would fit Tony's
statement about asynchronous information is lubrication. There are
sooooo many variables that can affect lubricant type and lubrication
schedules that the only feasable way to presnt the information is on a
table. And that, IMHO, constitutes a graphic.

Agian, not either/or, but when.

Jason





Previous by Author: RE: Text is bad: Was Ideas in Motion
Next by Author: RE: Text is bad: Was Ideas in Motion
Previous by Thread: RE: Text is bad: Was Ideas in Motion
Next by Thread: RE: Text is bad: Was Ideas in Motion


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads