TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: Of myth and reality From:SteveFJong -at- aol -dot- com To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:06:31 EDT
[Never argue from digest mode!]
Sean, you answer to my granularity question was "as granular as you want it
to be," which is, I think, imprecise; you probably mean "as granular as you
need it to be." I'm sure you know how to get to the phrase level, as do I, at
least in FrameMaker. My concern, based on watching working writers confront
this issue, is that their answer is, "I don't want to be that granular." As
the effort to maintain a single source rises, compliance falls. (I'm not
kidding about the MEGO effect...) Don't make too many assumptions about me--I
was the one pushing for single-sourcing!
As for context, you're on the dock yourself. Multi-source documents solve the
context problem by having, well, multiple sources. Single-source documents
need another solution--writing two different text blocks doesn't count. (If
you can thread together pedagogical material, procedure, and reference
material into a single block, you're a better writer than I am 8^)
As for VAX DOCUMENT, I can assume no credit or blame. I'm not talking about
my personal attempt to single-source; I'm talking about the entire
corporation's multiyear effort to find economies between technical writers
and instructional designers. While the corporate group was using DOCUMENT, we
were off by ourselves, using Interleaf and watching the flames shoot up. (I
think they're still wetting down the ashes 8^( It wasn't the wrong approach,
it was the wrong implementation. For instance, tag definition was restricted
to corporate template designers--you can see how that would put a crimp in
our style. (I'll value your new approaches if you'll value my experience 8^)
I see you quoted a figure of 40% content reuse as the point where
single-sourcing becomes cost-effective. I can live with that, but doesn't it
matter how much content there is in total? Trying to single-source at a small
company with one product would hardly be the Platonic ideal, but the bigger
the library, the more worthwhile sharing or single-sourcing becomes.
It's true I have been referring to a print/WinHelp project. I'd be interested
to read your views on how changing the display engine changes the audience's
Assuming you are at peace with granularity and context issues, I can see how
XML (at least--you're not committing to a specific solution) could be made to
work. It would be interesting to see a small sample.
Buy RoboHelp Deluxe starting at only $798: you'll get RoboDemo, the hot new
software demonstration tool that's taking the Help authoring world by storm,
together with RoboHelp Office. Learn more at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
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.