Re: Reality? Was: HTML vs PDF

Subject: Re: Reality? Was: HTML vs PDF
From: "Marie C. Paretti" <mparetti -at- RRINC -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 09:33:51 -0500

Another techwhirler succumbs and joins the thread. . . .

At 02:41 PM 3/12/98 -0600, Scott Gray wrote:
>Also I wish I could count the number of times I've heard someone complain
>about the manuals that come with particular products (especially VCRs).
>If quality documentation is online it certainly will convince a certain
>percentage into giving their loyalty to that product.

Isn't that argument a bit of a red herring? The issue Scott raises here is
*at least* as dependent on the writer as the medium (and I would argue more
dependent). There are usable HTML docs and unusable HTML docs, and the
same goes for paper manuals -- the medium itself does not guarantee
quality, usability, or effectiveness. In fact, I might even argue that it
is *harder* to design an effective HTML doc b/c of the diversity of ways to
approach the doc and the need to think through hyperlinks, etc. It's
certainly no easier (and clearly I'm talking about the actual writing and
organizing, not the software one uses to physically create the docs).

We keep coming back to the same bottom line -- writing and delivering docs
that meet your customers' needs as effeciently and effectively as possible.
Choice of medium is only a piece, not the whole, of that process.


Marie C. Paretti
Recognition Research, Inc. (RRI)
1750 Kraft Drive, Suite 2000
Blacksburg, VA 24060
mparetti -at- rrinc -dot- com

Previous by Author: Re: Coloring hypertext links in PDF
Next by Author: Re: diffs betw tech and academic writing (was writing samples)
Previous by Thread: Re: Reality? Was: HTML vs PDF
Next by Thread: Re: Reality? Was: HTML vs PDF

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads