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.
Sure, it can be done (creating large docs in Word) -- but how
*efficiently* and how *robustly* is the question. (Which then raises the
question "how efficient do you need to be and how robust do the docs
need to be?")
Since my basement flooded a few weeks ago, this metaphor comes to mind:
I could have bailed out my basement with a bucket, or with an automatic
pump. Not much water? The bucket would have worked fine and been more
cost effective and I wouldn't have minded scooping out a few gallons. A
foot of water? Automatic pump was the way to go. The bucket would have
been possible, but time-consuming and inefficient.
Just use the right tool for the right job. PageMaker, FrameMaker, Word,
Quark, etc., all have their uses and all have their quirks. (I must be
getting soft with age -- I don't do much product bashing any more ;-)
Tech Pubs Manager
Seagate Software (Durham, NC, USA) mailto:alexiap -at- seagatesoftware -dot- com
>As someone who's used Word, WordPerfect, AmiPro, WordStar,=20
>and even DCF/GML, I must be either tremendously na=EFve after 20=20
>years in this business or just plain inexperienced. For the past =
>years I've used Word to produce multi-chapter, multi-hundred page
>user documentation. Recently I finished a 400+ document. Word's
>no walk in the park, it has idiosyncracies, but I've not experienced