Re: Developments in the review cycle

Subject: Re: Developments in the review cycle
From: Robert Lauriston <robert -at- lauriston -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L Writing <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:58:10 -0700

Here in 2016, I have everything in one place all the time, with
integrated WYSIWYG-ish editor; source editor; page history with
compare and revert; TOC / nav tree and template editors; PDF, web
help, and static HTML export; backup; and more, all accessible from
any system or VM I'm working on at the moment.SMEs can review at any
time without my having to do anything other than send them an email
(which I can do without leaving the page) or open a JIRA ticket. We
can all see each other's inline or bottom of page comments. There's an
integrated notification system that lets you know if someone responds
to or mentions you in a comment.

Since I have to deliver HTML anyway, why not eliminate the middleman
and use it as the source format? Markdown or rST or AsciiDoc, well, as
Clark Evans joked 15 years ago, YAML.

I hadn't heard about the $495 Prince desktop licenses, but Scroll PDF
Exporter is $550 for 50 users.

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Ryan Young <ryangyoung -at- gmail -dot- com> wrote:
> Interesting. Why is it like rolling back the clock? I know Markdown doesn't
> support finer-grained elements, but you can use XHTML elements in Markdown
> as a supplement. That said, some people have made a good argument for rST
> instead:
> http://ericholscher.com/blog/2016/mar/15/dont-use-markdown-for-technical-docs/
>
> Using Git and Markdown is still good for collaboration: developers would
> largely rather stick with their tools (Git/text editor or IDE/command line)
> than something even as easy as Confluence. It might be a drawback for other
> contributors.
>
> If you use your 10-user Confluence scheme, the price point comparison is
> true. If you have to work with a Confluence instance that has over 50 users,
> though, they start to equal out (if you get the desktop Prince licenses,
> which we did).
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Robert Lauriston <robert -at- lauriston -dot- com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Switching from XHTML source in Confluence to Markdown in files seems
>> like rolling back the clock five years, unless there's a wiki that
>> uses Markdown source. And even then, Prince is way more expensive than
>> Scroll PDF Exporter.
>
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives


References:
Developments in the review cycle: From: Erika Yanovich
RE: Developments in the review cycle: From: Steve Hudson
Re: Developments in the review cycle: From: Ryan Young
Re: Developments in the review cycle: From: Robert Lauriston
Re: Developments in the review cycle: From: Ryan Young
Re: Developments in the review cycle: From: Robert Lauriston
Re: Developments in the review cycle: From: Ryan Young

Previous by Author: Re: Developments in the review cycle
Next by Author: Re: Developments in the review cycle
Previous by Thread: Re: Developments in the review cycle
Next by Thread: Re: Developments in the review cycle


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads