RE: Structure vs. Substance?

Subject: RE: Structure vs. Substance?
From: "MacDonald, Stephen" <Stephen -dot- MacDonald -at- Aspect -dot- com>
To: 'TECHWR-L' <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:28:14 -0400




Mike Stockman wrote:

> My response to you is this: Keep your structure until I fix the other
> problems. Then we can talk.

On this one, I agree with Dan Emory.

If you could track it back in the history of the doc set's development, lack
of structure was probably the biggest contributor to the "other problems."

Most documentation flaws I have encountered were directly due to poor, or
more commonly, no specifications, market requirements, and software
development process.

Occasionally I've encountered cases where the writer did a poor job, but
most often, when I inquired and found out the conditions under which the
work was done, I was impressed it had turned out so well.

Steve MacDonald
Aspect Telecommunications, Inc.





Previous by Author: RE: An invitation to Andrew and others (long)
Next by Author: RE: Structure vs Substance?
Previous by Thread: Doc plan
Next by Thread: RE: Structure vs. Substance?


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads