Re: OK, good responses on parts lists, now how about foldouts?

Subject: Re: OK, good responses on parts lists, now how about foldouts?
From: "Metzger, Lucinda" <cmetzger -at- DUKANE -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:07:28 -0500

Hmmm. We leave the border and doc control info on our drawings. Yes, we
do have some problems with legibility at times, which is frustrating,
but we've got a few reasons for doing it this way:

1) The drawings look more "finished" to our users when the borders are
left on -- they know they've got the whole schematic.

2) It helps our support guys to leave the doc control info on, because
they use it to identify which version of a drawing the customer is using
when s/he calls in with a question.

3) In our manuals, we refer the users to the drawings by their numbers,
which are part of the doc control info on the drawings.

I'll be interested to hear how others are doing this, and how they've
overcome the problems of legibility when shrinking a D-size drawing
down.

>----------
>From: Richard J. Collins[SMTP:writejob -at- DNAI -dot- COM]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 7:33 AM
>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject: OK, good responses on parts lists, now how about foldouts?
>
>Hello to all the hardware writers,
>Well, I think those are the ones who are going to respond.
>
>First off, I thought the advice offered on what level of parts to include in
>parts lists in organizational manuals, helped a lot. Most writers voted for
>limiting the list to just what the manual covered -- which turns out to be
>the top level assemblies and power supplies and so forth. Now it can be
>told, that was my point of view going in.
>
>The other discussion that is croppin up now is how to incorporate
>engineering drawings into the foldout section (pages are 11 x 17, no apron).
>One camp wants to leave the border zones and document control information
>intact. The other side wants to strip it off and enlarge the content to the
>maximum of the page image area to improve legibility. Most assembly drawings
>are done for output on E size or D size paper and when reduced to fit an 11
>x 17 the type is extremely hard to read on some drawings.
>
>The border information is useful for digital circuits or other such drawings
>and schematics that incorporate a component numbering scheme that is
>referenced to the border zones. I can see leaving that intact. But if the
>border information serves no useful purpose on an assembly drawing, and
>leaving it on makes you shrink the image to make it fit, and that hurts
>legibility, I say take it off.
>
>Opinions, rationalizations and so forth are very welcome.
>
>Thanks
>
>Rich Collins
>Write Job
>408 370-2855
>
>
>
>




Previous by Author: Re: Where do we fit in?
Next by Author: Re: Addendum Alert
Previous by Thread: OK, good responses on parts lists, now how about foldouts?
Next by Thread: Re: OK, good responses on parts lists, now how about foldouts?


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads