Re: TECHWR-L Digest - 17 Ju

Subject: Re: TECHWR-L Digest - 17 Ju
From: Michael Cooperman <michael_cooperman -at- MATHWORKS -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 13:22:53 -0500

Subject: Reply Form Time:1:16 PM
RE>>TECHWR-L Digest - 17 Jul 1994 Date:7/19/94
Steve Jong (Hello, Steve, long time no see) makes an interesting point in his
comment about standards:

"In the case of documentation quality, unless you have metrics,
you can't tell what's an improvement and what's merely a change,
but with metrics you can point to an innovation and say 'that's
what we all want to do,' and then you can change your standards."

This is really an obvious point. If, for example, you change your cereal (or
its packaging), you can measure whether it was a good idea - from its sales.
But what happens with documentation? Wherever I've worked, intelligent
comments about manuals were almost totally absent. Apart from fewer
technical support calls, how do you know when you've made a change that
results in improved manuals? Does Digital really have time to field test
their documentation? Does anybody?

Does anybody know whether their users read their books? And, for those who
do, how do you find out?

Curious to read replies.
michael cooperman

Previous by Author: Re: Printing process for go
Next by Author: Re: -able after 'e'
Previous by Thread: Re: Printing process for go
Next by Thread: Re: TECHWR-L Digest - 17 Ju

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

Sponsored Ads