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: Can't do without paper? From:Faith Weber <weber -at- EASI -dot- ENET -dot- DEC -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 6 Jan 1994 09:42:08 PST
>Lo and behold as the deadline approached, the manager decided that paper
>documentation looked pretty good after all. My department had to drop
>everything to ride to the rescue.
>** Over here we had the same experience for a different reason. Our managers
> returned from a visit to the USA and reported that the market will not
> pay thousands of dollars for a product that doesn't include complete
> documentation on paper. Are they right?
In my experience, yes, though I don't know if I'd include the
qualifier "complete"! I hate to say this but I'd change that to
"...that doesn't include *impressive-looking* documentation on
paper." I asked an ex-client working with me whether he thought
it would be OK to send out 10 pages of release notes stapled,
rather than wire-o binding them with our standard covers. (The
content would be the same.)
He said "Gee, I don't know. They are paying *a lot of money* for
the software!" I have heard this sentiment from enough people
to convince me that folks want to *see* a nice-looking document
for their money. Whether or not they use it is another thing . . .
though I think they are more inclined to use it if it looks
nice (what do dating, job interviews, and documentation have
weber -at- easi -dot- enet -dot- dec -dot- com