Re: Structure vs. Substance?

["Tim Altom" <taltom -at- simplywritten -dot- com>]

You're right, and oddly enough that structure would be sufficient for a
small project. A better approach, with still a high level of abstraction,
might be:

I. Assembly
  A. Assembly of unit
      1. Steps
      2. Reference information
  B. Assembly of unit
      1. Steps
      2. Reference information
  C. Assembly of unit
      1. Steps
      2. Reference information
2. Operation
   A. Control functions
      1. Control
      2. Control
   B. Setup

And so forth. What device is this for? Who knows? Who cares? But it's plenty
good enough right now for planning, design, and implementation of
technology. Even more, once this structure is implemented, it's good for any
number of products, regardless of details. You could do this for term papers
too, if you wanted. But many teachers want an outline to reflect your grasp
of how the content will be developed, which is more than I expect a
structure to do. I want a structure to provide a shell, a set of parameters
if you like. A structure is a whole lot of decisions that I make before
content is started, so content can proceed without having to make those
decisions later.

Tim Altom
Simply Written, Inc.
Featuring FrameMaker and the Clustar(TM) System
"Better communication is a service to mankind."
317.562.9298
Check our Web site for the upcoming Clustar class info
http://www.simplywritten.com


> > Haven't you ever
> > written an outline for an English class before you started writing?
That's
> > structure predating content.
>
> Um, Tim, I think an outline that predates content would look like this:
>
> I.
>   A.
>       1.
>       2.
>   B.
>
> And if I could have turned that in when my English teacher assigned an
outline,
> I would have been a happy camper.
>