Re: PDF v paper

Subject: Re: PDF v paper
From: Peter Lucas <peterlucas -at- EARTHLINK -dot- NET>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:22:22 -0800

I was going to throw my two cents in, and then I read Darren's post, and he
stole my thunder completely. So, I'll pull a Microsoft and steal somebody
else's idea, but instead of adding bugs to it and raising the price, I'll
leave it as is and say "I second that emotion!"

Well put Darren! Especially point #1!

Oh, by the way, has anybody mentioned that printed manuals
(shelf-crowding-dust-gatherers) are a waste of our natural resources? I'm
not a tree hugger per se, but creating and distributing on-line manuals has
to save a tree here or there, right?

Peter Lucas
Decade Software Company
Fresno, CA

>My two cents worth.
>Here are some facts:
>1) Humans are creatures of habit and resistant to change.
>2) Books have been around for quite some time.
>3) On-line documents have not.
>On-line documentation is a far superior format. No one can argue that
>full-colour graphics, audible instructions and animated screen-shots aren't
>superior to a black and white text. Additionally, on-line help can be
>content and context-sensitive. A book always opens in the same place.
>On-line help can provide faster, cheaper, more thorough assistance to the
>average user.
>Yet, because of the newness of computers in general and on-line
>documentation specifically, people's chronic affection for textbooks and
>obdurateness of human nature, we're stuck with hardcopy for a while yet.
>Darren Barefoot
>Technical Content Developer
>MPS Canada, Vancouver, BC
>604.904.0822 ext.112
>From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000==

From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=

Previous by Author: Why we do this
Next by Author: Re: PDF v paper
Previous by Thread: Re: PDF v paper
Next by Thread: Re: PDF v paper

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

Sponsored Ads