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.
>No, I do not consider I.M. to be restricting. I can always
>break loose and *Create* if I want. And after a binge of
>*Create*, I find I have created a decently Mapped procedure.
>Info Mapping is just common sense, packaged and
I think Dick's got a good point that is often overlooked. I've heard
many people argue against the Information Mapping format because they
feel it's too restrictive.
One important thing to remember is that Information Mapping isn't a
law. Once you've taken the training, you're free to modify the format
as needed to meet your needs. It's not like writing to MILSPECS where
a government auditing agency will come along later and hammer you if
you don't meet the specs. Nobody from Info Mapping is going to come
by later to check your work and penalize you if you're not in perfect
alignment with the format.
Sure, it's all copyright information...but that's not to control the
way you use it, it's so that if somebody like me decides to start
teaching the method without their permission, they can toss my
scrawny kiester into the hoosegow.*
Info Mapping isn't the perfect solution to every problem, and it
likely -should- be modified a bit from site to site, in order to meet
specific needs. But as Dick said, it's just common sense, packaged
(*Non-slang translation: take any required legal action to stop me
from infringing on the copyright.)
rjl -at- bostech -dot- com