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.
It is certainly not that way everywhere. I would wager a real pint of
whatever you are drinking that my structure is more repeatable and sound
than the one our programmers use. And, my docs are QAed, by me and
through a formal QA process by the QA team.
And, if it is that way, maybe it is that way by design, a deliberate
approach to being cost effective by the company in question? Remember,
quality, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness do not mean the same thing to
everyone.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Bell [mailto:RBell -at- OptioSoftware -dot- com]
I agree. Our company is rare in that the writers unit test their
procedures. Then QA tests and validates the procedures and the
software.
When our documentation goes to a customer, it is close to being
perfectly
accurate. A company I previously worked for only QAed the docs by
checking
the part # in the package.
Check out the new release of RoboDemo, our easy-to-use tutorial software.
Plus, buy RoboHelp Office in August and save $100 with our mail-in rebate.
Get details and download free trial versions at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
---
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.
