Re: Handling revisions

Subject: Re: Handling revisions
From: Grant Hogarth <CGHogarth -at- AOL -dot- COM>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 16:01:14 -0500

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.


Previous by Author: Re: Printer drivers
Next by Author: Re: Glossary terms in index/s...
Previous by Thread: Re: Handling revisions
Next by Thread: FrameMaker versus PageMaker


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads