TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Geoff Hart had some good points itemizing conditions that can affect
productivity metrics, until he came up to this one:
>- a measure of the _required quality_ for each concept; obviously,
>documenting how to shut down Word requires far less quality than performing
>CPR, and the extra quality is going to take some time to produce.
The problem is that 'quality' is another one of those words for which each
person has an individual definition. Is 'quality' defined by freedom from
spelling and grammatical errors? Well structured sentences? Well structured
topics? IMHO, any of these sorts of definitions of quality can be applied both
to exiting Word and to performing CPR. But then again, a topic about performing
CPR is going to have much more content, therefore it will take a bit more time
to ensure that a level of quality is achieved, than it will to ensure the same
level of quality for the topic of exiting Word--eg, there are more words to
spell check, more subjects and verbs that can disagree, more modifiers that can
dangle themselves, etc.
Anyway, I'm gettong to a good part in this Dracula movie I'm watching, so I'll
shut up now.
