Re: need to look better fast

Subject: Re: need to look better fast
From: Keith Arnett <keith_arnett -at- RESTON -dot- OMD -dot- STERLING -dot- COM>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 09:55:51 -0500

Rebecca:

Sounds like you have a good handle on things. You didn't mention what
application you're developing your doc on, but I presume it's template
driven...in which case, I'd suggest you put together a no-frills,
plain vanilla template that contains the basic page elements you want,
put it into service ASAP, and then add the style refinements you think
are appropriate as you go along.

As to binding, I'll first say that in my checkered past, I have worked
as an electronics tech on the kind of machines you are documenting (in
my case, computer controlled milling machines and lathes). That said,
I would recommend you avoid standard three-ring binders for your
products.

The problem is, these manuals will likely see hard (and I mean *hard*)
service, e.g., being thrown into file drawers, slammed around on oily
work benches, tossed into parts carts, dropped on the shop floor, etc.
(all this when they are *not* being used for actual reference at the
machine site).

As a result, all but the sturdiest of binders tend to give up and
spill their guts, either slowly or all at once. And once this
happens, it's all over, because pages will inevitably be lost, torn,
oil-soaked, stepped on, and generally unavailable to the person who
needs them. This generally happens years from now, when the machine
has aged and is in need of service, and replacement documentation will
probably be hard, if not impossible, to obtain.

Three-ring binders also offer the convenience of "easy removal and
insertion." This is attractive if your company distributes frequent
updates, corrections or addenda. But, the downside of this is the
scenario, "I really don't need the whole book, so I'll just take this
one schematic out to the machine"....after which said schematic is
never heard of or seen again.

If you must use three-ring binders, buy the kind that have pure vinyl
covers (as opposed to the kind with plastic thermo-bonded over a
cardboard filler panel). They will last much longer. And, of course,
buy the best binder mechanism you can find.

GBC binding works fine, and has the advantage of laying flat on a work
surface when open. Its main disadvantage is the inability to easily
accommodate removal and insertion of individual pages.

The best (and, of course, most costly) solution is to use three-ring
punched paper with ledger-type binders. These binders generally use some
kind of post-and-fastener arrangement to keep the papers in order. This is
generally bothersome enough to discourage casual removal of pages, but
still allows a mechanism for adding insertions, and removing pages for
copying, etc. They also tend to be fairly heavy-duty in construction.

Hope this helps. The kind of project you're embarking on has the potential
to be one of the most rewarding kind...

Regards,

Keith Arnett
Technical Writer
Sterling Software, Inc./Operations Management Division
Reston VA USA



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: need to look better fast
Author: Rebecca Price <beccap -at- RUST -dot- NET> at INTERNET
Date: 6/27/98 9:49 AM


This is going to be long; sorry, but I think the background is
necessary in order to understand both the magnitude of the problem I'm
facing and the issues.

I just started a new job as the one and only tech writer in a
small-ish company (~7 million in sales/year). We make computer-driven
heavy machinery. Originally, the co. had a staff of 4 or 5 in the
tech comms department; now it's down to one person, part time, and has
been for the past 4 or 5 years. The person I'm replacing never really
wanted to be a tech writer in the first place, and is now back to his
real love, which is QA and customer service.

While we make maybe 4 or 5 basic kinds of machines, every specific
machine is unique because of the level of customization we offer our
customers. This means that while there is some boilerplate (safety
issues, installation), every manual is in essence a one-shot, with
individual 3 - 5 page sections drawn from diverse manuals. Over the
years, some changes in formatting have been made, so now each section
is very different from the others, and the whole document looks like
the hodge-podge it is. There is absolutely NO consistency. Not in
fonts, leading, heading styles, number of columns/page, header and
footer styles and content... nothing. There are procedures in the
reference section, and reference information in the procedures
section. You get the idea - and those are only the cosmetic problems.
Depth of information in the document varies wildly and doesn't seem to
relate to the importance of the information, only ease of documenting.
There was no review process, so technical errors have crept in due to
sloppy editing and no one has noticed.

Oddly, not even our customers have seemed to notice... or at least
comment on it.

I spoke with my boss (who is backing me 100%) and have permission to
go visit some of our local customers to actually talk with users.
This will help me address strucutre and content issues... but I have
to address the formatting problems *right away* -- I want the manuals
to at least look professional while I'm addressing the deeper and more
time-consuming issues.

So, I need some suggestions on how to look better fairly quickly and
easily. I am, ov course, going to address the formatting issue
immediately. One other idea I had was to pre-print our basic cover
using color for the logo, on shiny card stock. I could then run this
through our laser printer to custom print the name of the machine, and
the type of manual it is (operator, installation), with a photo of the
machine on the cover.

We've been sending our manuals out for printing and GBC binding.
Since each document is unique, I've suggested that we get a duplexing
printer and bring our repro and binding in house, to save time (many
of our manuals aren't even started until the machine is ready to be
shipped, and are shipped separately, due to last minute
customizations This is Not Acceptable and Will Change, but will also
take time to implement).

It would be easiest to switch from GBC binding to 3-hole binders...
does anyone have any feel for which works better in a factory
environment? (this is assuming that they're even used!)

I'm also thinking of switching from 10 pt to 12 pt type, again, for
ease of use in a factory environment. Anyone have any thoughts on
that, too?

or in general any ideas on relatively quick ways to signal that Things
Are Changing, and show rapid general improvement? I know I've got my
work cut out for me, and to call this the Agean Stable of tech
communications is being mild... but as I say, I've got backing from On
High, so I think it's doable.

Thanks!

-becca




Previous by Author: Re[3]: printing imbroglio
Next by Author: Re[2]: FIXED Hideous Frame Problem
Previous by Thread: need to look better fast
Next by Thread: HTML E-mail and Audience Awareness


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


Sponsored Ads