RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes

["Steve Hudson" <steve -at- wright -dot- com -dot- au>]

Ah well - disagreements foster such.

> ISO, if you carefully read
their standards, is not and never has been, nor will it ever be a guarantee
of quality products (or documentation).

My statement ("ISO9001 was the end-result of a large number of large
companies seeking to
improve their processes through consistant application of solid
principles.") does not make any allusion to the guiding principle you state.
Yet....

ISO was brought about by people desiring to have a "best of" standard. If
ISO is not a (do not read as Only) guarentee of Quality, why is it QA uses
ISO? Why is it ISO certification comes with a Quality tick? The experts are
all mad of course and Joanne Hackos is dribbling fast.

ISO does NOT say you must follow your process. What is DOES say is that all
processes performed repetively must be written down and defined to ensure a
Quality (standard) result. Deviations are allowed but MUST be documented. If
you don't know how something was done - how can you repeat your performance?
Business is about producing repeatable results within an acceptable level of
error.

If you follow the spirit of ISO - the continous Quality improvement cycle -
your processes will improve. However, that is not to say that ISO can't be
misinterpreted and mis-applied.

> It also doubled the amount of work I have to do in order to develop or
modify a pub.

Qualify this please. I have never heard anything so ridiculous. Does
registering a new document in a spread-sheet take just as much time as
WRITING the document? Sheeesh. Let alone you can merely store it in a stated
location and not even register it - as registration can be provided throughh
an audit of standard locations :-(


> All too
often, however, once a style guide is created, it tends to become stagnant
over time because it is rarely reviewed or updated.

Contrapuntally to a recent argument, I applaud this statement. It says (to
me) "If a style guide is dun right, she'll be right for yonks." which is an
excellent argument for developing a style guide early then sticking to it.


> Granted, ISO made some people take certain steps to verify the content of
their pubs... And, I was doing all this before ISO came onto the scene.

Exactedly. Yet again you point out the obvious value. It mandates practices
that SHOULD be in place anyway. Ideally, you are already performing the
basic premises anyway. How many documents do you have? What are their names?
What was the last time you reviewed them? If you don't know these answers
then you do not have any control over your documents as you don't even know
what they are or where they are.

I am NOT saying you HAVE TO HAVE ISO processes in place to run a Q dept. I
am saying they do promote such though...
(caveat: when implemented correctly)

Now, your specious argument regarding style guides of 20 years ago not being
valid today. Yes, well done, we have a nhew media, which came about in the
last 20 years. For the first time we have liquid displays and folks is
running to address this. So we see the first substantative updates in many
industry style manuals in a long time.

However, CMS books still look like CMS books and that style HASNT changed in
20 years.

The style guide benefits two classes of document user more than the tech
writer:

Non-writers - can confidently produce material adhering to the corporate
look and feel

Users - have consistent presentation. Cummon, the installation guide uses
one format to display stuff for you to type in and the user guide uses
another. Can this possibly HELP the user experience? No - whereas
consistancy can.

The underlying attitude on a number of occasions seems to be that the ISO
mob did this on their own backs - invented some piece of self-promotional
out of sheer thin air and mandated it to the world. This couldn't be more
incorrect.

Steve Hudson , HDK List MVP
Wright Technologies Pty Ltd (Aus)





-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Sanborn

Steve Hudson wrote:
"ISO9001 was the end-result of a large number of large companies seeking to
improve their processes through consistant application of solid principles."

Sorry, Steve, I have to jump in on this one.  ISO, if you carefully read
their standards, is not and never has been, nor will it ever be a guarantee
of quality products (or documentation).  Boiled down to bare bones, ISO
simply states that IF you have a process, you must follow it.  Too many
folks got on the bandwagon early and proclaimed that ISO 900X would save the
world from shoddy workmanship and crappy products.  In my experience, ISO
doesn't even guarantee that you have to follow your process if you have an
escape clause for every process that allows a supervisor or SME to sign a
waiver for the process.

All I have seen from ISO standards is that they are labor-intensive and
increase the work load for everyone as opposed to assisting in streamlining
procedures and maintaining standards.  ISO has done a great job of providing
work for auditors who might actually have to find something productive to do
if these standards had never come along.  It also doubled the amount of work
I have to do in order to develop or modify a pub.

Granted, ISO made some people take certain steps to verify the content of
their pubs.  Not to sound as though I am better than everyone else (because
I'm not) but, as a matter of pride and in an effort to ensure that my target
audience got the best possible pubs, I always insisted on multiple reviews
with a broadly mixed team of SMEs to ensure accurate content.  In addition,
for procedural pubs, I sent the document down to our test lab for
independednt verification of the procedures.  And, I was doing all this
before ISO came onto the scene.

Style guides are great when they are properly developed and used.  All too
often, however, once a style guide is created, it tends to become stagnant
over time because it is rarely reviewed or updated.  One of the most dynamic
challeneges we face is the ability to convey information to a broadly mixed
audience.  Not everyone understands information the same way.  While a style
guide is wonderful for providing document templates and guidelines that
maintain a consistent document appearance and usage, if the style guide is
not periodically reviewed for current applications and social trends, it
quickly becomes an unstylish style guide.  What was true 20 years ago about
learning and documentation is not true today.  But, how many style guides
have failed to keep up?

Finally, while it begs the question, for whose benefit is the style guide
developed, the writer or the publication user?  However the style guide is
developed, it needs to provide a balance that aids the writer while ensuring
the quality standards on which our users rely.  If it comes down more in
favor of one side or the other, someone loses and it may be our audience.
These are things that ISO doesn't address and could care less about because
the ISO took the easy way out by simply mandating that you follow your
documented processes.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Be a published author!  iUniverse gives you: a high-quality paperback, a
custom cover design, and distribution to 25,00 retailers.  Join our almost
10,000 published authors today. http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr

  Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
  5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
  Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.