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.
The biggest problem with three-ring binders is that they can look "cheap"
next to perfect-bound versions.
I realize that this is more a marketing issue, but it is nonetheless a real
issue (i.e. one that must be seriously considered and addessed.
It also depends on your product and the market.
====slight diversion ====
If I can recall the study I once read, Three-ring binders (3RBs) were
acceptable for engineering, military, or mainframe/mini computer apps.
The "classiest" binding is Case. (like textbooks). The only company I know of
that ships a case-bound manual is Autodesk for its AutoCAD product.
The next level down is Perfect. This is especially true in the Retail market.
Next is Wire-O and Velo-bind.
Wire-O binding is acceptible for small manuals and for low-cost retail apps.
(such as modem manuals, etc.)
The same is true for velo-binding.
Here is where 3RBs fit in.
Moving on down the status row, we come to Plastic Comb binding.
Good for training manuals or beta release docs.
Fold-and-staple is considered one level down from these.
Finally, of course , there is just loose sheets, either tacked together at
the corner, or just clipped together.