Re: USA Today article demands printed documentation

Subject: Re: USA Today article demands printed documentation
From: Chris Hamilton <caxdj -at- EARTHLINK -dot- NET>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:56:04 -0500

John--

The article was a single anecdotal account. I'm not going to make my
decisions based on that article. It's not that the author's opinion (or
Garret's, for that matter) is invalid. It's that it's an opinion. Before
I take a decision, I want some kind of more universal feedback from my
audience.

As I said in the "Aunt Martha" scenario, in some cases, comprehensive
printed documentation is the right thing to do. My point was that
sometimes it's not. The article didn't account for that possibility.

As for the lowest common denominator, that's one of the reasons we get
paid the big buck, to figure that out. I try to aim for someplace just
less than the middle. For instance, in an object-oriented programming
tool, I'm not going to explain what objects are. I will state an
assumption that says I expect readers to know this information. There
are plenty of resources for finding this information outside of what I
write.

I'm sorry if that sounds callous, but sometimes you have to do what you
can instead of what you should, deadlines and contraints being what they
are.

If I came across as being snotty about the whole thing, that wasn't my
intent.

Chris

--
Chris Hamilton
Technical Writer
Tampa, FL
caxdj -at- earthlink -dot- net

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




Previous by Author: Re: Providing clients information via e-mail
Next by Author: Re: Liberal Studies as Background...
Previous by Thread: Re: USA Today article demands printed documentation
Next by Thread: Re: USA Today article demands printed documentation


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads