Re: Future use

Subject: Re: Future use
From: Suzanne Gerrior <suzanne -at- JAZZMAIL -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 09:12:57 -0500

Hello Kimberly and Marci,

I am in the same situation. I just say, "Feature is currently under
development and not yet available."


Suzanne Gerrior
Documentation Specialist
Jazz Media Network
Tel: (514) 931-7009, ext. 255
Fax: (514) 931-9495
suzanne -at- jazzmail -dot- com

-----Original Message-----
From: Kimberly Green <kimberly -dot- green -at- CHEETAHNET -dot- COM>
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU <TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU>
Date: February 24, 1998 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: Future use


>Marci,
>
>We use "Not available in Version 1.1" (the version number for the
>release we are documenting). This is not a positive selling phrase, it
>just states the fact and does not promise anything.
>
>I am in a very similar situation. I am trying to document a constantly
>changing software product with changing priorities and changing
>schedules. Does anyone have any tips for working effectively in this
>situation?
>
>Thanks,
>Kimberly
>
> ----------
> From: Marci Abels[SMTP:mabels -at- CSIKS -dot- COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 8:34 AM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Future use
>
> Hello,
>
> I know this has been discussed before, and I've looked in the
>archives
> and am still looking for a better way. We are documenting a
>developing
> software package. Several features are not yet operational,
>though they
> are planned for future implementation, some features are on the
>menu but
> not operational because they are now obsolete, as far as the
>programmers
> are concerned, and some features are still up in the air
>regarding
> future implementation.
>
> In the past, I used "For future release" which served us well.
>This
> iteration, however, we have several features that will go away,
>some of
> them were operational in the past but are no longer so. Some
>were
> planned for future implementation, but have been dropped from
>the
> planning schedule for various reasons. And sill others will
>eventually
> be implemented, as soon as the programmers have time. I tried
> "Implementation currently under review" but we have some people
>who
> dislike that. So, I am looking for a statement to use that holds
>no
> promises for the future, but says "Don't bother with this, it
>doesn't
> work now." Of course, we wnat something more positive than the
>simple
> truth, that the feature is not operational and we don't really
>know if
> it ever will be. :-)
>
> I'm on digest, so if you have any ideas for me, please send them
>to me
> and I will summarize for the list.
> --
> Marci Abels
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Acres/2592/
> CSI, Inc,
> http://www.csi.com
>
>
>
> Send commands to listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g., SIGNOFF
>TECHWR-L)
> Search archives at:
>http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html,
>
>
>




Previous by Author: RoboHelp5
Next by Author: Question about Programmers and Usability
Previous by Thread: Re: Future use
Next by Thread: Re: Future use


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads