RE: Structure vs. Substance?

Subject: RE: Structure vs. Substance?
From: Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com>
To: techwr-l digest recipients <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:57:30 -0700

"Giordano, Connie" <Connie -dot- Giordano -at- FMR -dot- COM> wrote:

>It really is a "chicken and the egg" thing folks. You can't have structure
>unless you understand at least something about the content. Both structure
>and content evolve as you become more adept with whatever you document.
>Structure without content is null, content without structure is void. Way
>too many writers out there are either null or void or both.

Neatly summarized.

As an instructor and as a writer, I've seen time wasted by people
giving no thought to structure. I've also seen planning structure
become a substitute for writing, and the measure of a document's
success becoming how closely it followed the plan. I'm not sure
which extreme is worse, but neither is efficient.

Bruce Byfield, Outlaw Communications
Contributing Editor, Maximum Linux
bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com | Tel: 604.421.7189

"And if they waste nothing, they can keep their little pile,
And if they say nothing, they will not be on file,
And if they see nothing, no one shall see them,
No one will take down their name."
- Oysterband, "Flatlands"

Previous by Author: Re: Trip Reports re: presentations
Next by Author: Help in Planning
Previous by Thread: Re: Structure vs. Substance?
Next by Thread: RE: Structure vs. Substance?

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

Sponsored Ads