Re: Microsoft developer doc revamp

Subject: Re: Microsoft developer doc revamp
From: Robert Lauriston <robert -at- lauriston -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L Writing <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 10:30:04 -0700

I hung on to an MS-DOS 5? 6? manual for years because the command-line
and batch file references were great. It was a model of organization
and clarity.

The Lotus 1-2-3 manuals from the same era (1990?) were also great, as
were Adobe's circa 1995-2000.

I think in those days manuals had to be good for software to sell well.

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Mike McCallister
<mike -dot- mccallister -at- pkware -dot- com> wrote:
> Got this link from a developer. Nothing in here about user docs, but success in one area can spread.
> Some comments are valuable, in discussing the "golden age of Microsoft documentation," with pointers to the DOS docs. Curious to hear what others think about the state of Microsoft docs (dev and user).
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development |


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 for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @


Microsoft developer doc revamp: From: Mike McCallister

Previous by Author: Re: Relationship bt RoboH styles and .css
Next by Author: Re: How to Refer to Software Versions ?
Previous by Thread: Microsoft developer doc revamp
Next by Thread: Re: Microsoft developer doc revamp

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

Sponsored Ads