Re: Structure vs. Substance?

[Tracy Boyington <tracy_boyington -at- okvotech -dot- org>]

Tim Altom wrote:

> 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

But Tim, this has content. Not much content, and really only a description of
what the content will be, but in order to get this far you already know that you
are writing about an object that is assembled and operated and has controls. Are
you assuming this is the "default" content for all TWs, or do I misunderstand
your reason for using this example?

> 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.

Right -- it's good for any number of *products*. What if I'm not writing about a
product? I'd have a different structure. So you have to have *some* idea of the
content before you can come up with a workable structure.

BTW, I'm not arguing that content comes first -- I think, as others have said,
that it's a chicken-and-egg thing. But I think it's very easy to become so
familiar with your own type of content that you even don't notice it's there.

Tracy
--
======================================================
Tracy Boyington    mailto:tracy_boyington -at- okvotech -dot- org
Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education
Stillwater, Oklahoma      http://www.okvotech.org/cimc
======================================================