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: WinHelp structure comes first? From:Dawn-Marie Oliver <dawn -at- CYBERSAFE -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 8 Jan 1996 14:03:40 -0800
>From: Tim Altom <taltom -at- IQUEST -dot- NET>
>I'm open to other arguments, though, and I'd be interested to know if
>anybody has reconciled these two views. In my mind, there are infinite gray
>zones between them, because an architectural approach is never 100%. But I
>try to push it as high as I can. Anybody got a good case or anecdote for
>doing an accretion WinHelp project?
I have done a couple large-scale WinHelp projects, using "get-to-it" approach
the first time and a planned structure the second time. The structured
approach resulted in a more useful file, in terms of logical links and
general "findability". I did leave time in the schedule for unplanned
growth, which always occurs.
The added benefit of having a structured plan to follow is that when it
comes time to testing the WinHelp file (you do have someone test every
link, don't you :) ), you can hand off your structure notes as a baseline
Dawn-Marie -dot- Oliver -at- CyberSafe -dot- com
Disclaimer: These opinions are all mine. My employer and I wouldn't have it
any other way.