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:Converting Windows Help Files to OS/2 From:Alexander Von_obert <avobert -at- TWH -dot- MSN -dot- SUB -dot- ORG> Date:Wed, 24 Jan 1996 18:48:02 +0100
* Antwort auf eine Nachricht von Michael Priestley an All am 15.01.96
MP> From: Michael Priestley <mpriestley -at- vnet -dot- ibm -dot- com>
MP> > with other words: considering the IPF compiler as something
MP> like an
MP> > assembler, you must write OS/2 help on an abstraction level
MP> like PC
MP> > programs were written some 20 years ago.
MP> Um, no. First off, there are WYSIWYG editors available, just
MP> as there
MP> are for RTF. However, you do sacrifice some control when you
MP> use an
MP> editor; tagging directly allows you more flexibility (the same
MP> as RTF).
our discussion started at the point that there were hardly any *good*
authoring tools for IPF.
MP> Second off, it is decidedly _not_ "an abstraction level like PC
MP> were written some 20 years ago". Even assuming PCs were around
MP> 20 years
MP> ago. It is at the same abstraction level as HTML, which is a
MP> modern innovation, and also decidedly simpler than programming,
MP> at any
MP> abstraction level.
Perhaps I should clarify my point of view: As long as I am to know the name of
a topic, as long as I am to know every detail of the underlying technology, as
long as I get no support for reuse of my texts, I consider myself working on
assembler level. Perhaps we could consider authoring tools based on Wordbasic
like Doc-to-Help as something like interpreted BASIC (which these tools are!).
MP> I would guess that you were blinkered by your RTF
MP> experience, and never gave IPF a real chance
I had none because of the tools I had to use at that customer.
MP> there are about 10 million satisfied OS/2 users
MP> who would balk at calling them a "mainframe company".
I did not disqualify OS/2 (I would *love* to have a real alternative to
the Microsoft monopoly), but complained about the authoring tools to write
OS/2 help. But one important point might be the following:
MP> the documentation for IPF (in the Warp toolkit) is a heckuvalot
MP> now than it was at the OS/2 2.0 level I used when I started.
My experiences were from the pre-WARP times and the developers of my customer
might have suffered a no-documentation error.
Greetings from Germany,
|Fidonet: Alexander Von_obert 2:2490/1719
|Internet: avobert -at- twh -dot- msn -dot- sub -dot- org
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
| From TechWriter's Home, Nuernberg Germany
| phone 49+911+591530, FIDOnet 2:2490/1719