Re: Online/print

Subject: Re: Online/print
From: Gwen Gall <ggall -at- CA -dot- ORACLE -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 12:11:13 EDT

In-Reply-To: CNSEQ1:TECHWR-L -at- VM1 -dot- ucc -dot- okstate -dot- edu's message of 09-23-94 07:12

Mary Deaton says:

I firmly believe that all documentation is a poor substitute for a
product. Technical communicators need to spend far more
time building relationships with product developers and influencing them to
create self-documenting, intuitive products that don't need 300
pages to explain the basics.

Right on, Mary! Who (in software writing) hasn't had the task of describing
a poorly designed, illogically structured, unnecessarily complex, and maybe
even unnecessary feature or function to make it sound useful and easy and
nice....or who hasn't heard the famous:

"That's not a bug, a feature!" (usually displayed in QA offices with
a little tap dancing insect wearing tophat and tails)

A Canadian example: One of my first writing jobs required that I CALL the
command "COLOR" in the documentation (yep, to appeal to you Amurcans out there!
;-) ), but the (stubborn Canadian) programmers programmed it as COLOUR.
Marketing insisted on COLOR in the doc. Engineering refused (without actually
saying so to management) to change it. So I had to write this _stupid_
statement, something like:

"On some systems, you may need to type in "colour"...


Gwen (ggall -at- ca -dot- oracle -dot- com)

"The question is not the size of your intelligence,
but how you use the little amount of it you might have."

--Sir John Guilgud

Previous by Author: Re: Why manuals?
Next by Author: Re: Online/print
Previous by Thread: Re: Online/print
Next by Thread: Re: Online/print

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

Sponsored Ads