Re: Process kills the dot.com
Dan Emory wrote:
> Does the fact that most commercial buildings and homes are mediocre
> (or, as Andrew would say, "worthless crap") mean that overconcern about
> structure is the cause, and architects would be better off just cobbling
> things
> together?
And Andrew replied:
Buildings and tangible structures are not directly synonymous with intellectual
endeavors. We've gone down that dead-end road before.
So you mean that an architect conceptualizing the structural design
of a building is not an intellectual endeavor that has many similarities
to a writer conceptualizing the structure of a document?
Dan Emory wrote:
> And when you visit a Frank Lloyd Wright house (e.g., Falling Water),
> Andrew, can you deny that logical analysis, ingenious structure,
> and attention to "every little nuance" are at the core of his genius?
Andrew wrote:
And Andrew replied:
Falling water is falling apart. So goes for logical analysis.
If you read the same article I read in Scientific American, you
know that it was one of his assistants who admitted he neglected to
take into account the negative moment of force on the cantilevers.
It also doesn't matter that, in many of his houses, the roofs leak.
Nobody's perfect.
Dan Emory wrote:
> No one, and certainly not Frank Lloyd Wright, would suggest that
> one structure fits all, but sound structure, whether it be for a
> building or a technical document, must be derived from
> fundamental principles that apply to the design of
> structures of any given type.
And Andrew replied
Wrong. Sound structure comes from sound elements. To use your own analogy - a
building can have the best design in the universe. But if the bricks and mortar
are of inferior quality and crumble when put under stress - the design,
structure, and brilliance are all worthless.
Once again you're requiring a choice between the chicken and
the egg. Sentences need a higher structural level to
give them force and effectiveness. The higher structure needs sentences
to implement the structure. Both are equally important.
Dan Emory wrote:
> We all learned in high school English class that outlining what
> you are going to write is a first principle, and that the intrinsic
> structure of any written piece determines whether it will be
> successful. Yet Andrew argues that "organization and structure
> of information is not the 'value' of that information."
And Andrew replied:Once again you demand a choice between the chicken and the egg.
It isn't. The content of a document is the meat. You hang that meat on a
structure to make it a little more edible to those reading. But the core fact
remains - without the meat you don't have dick to eat.
No one denounces content (words). But only you
keeps denouncing structure as a negative factor in the writing
process. The value exists in both the structure and the content.
Here, Dan Emory described all the benefits of XML.
And Andrew replied:
Yes, but the 900,000 hours it takes to build this fantastic structure of XML
marvel are all worth zero if the data you're shoving into this system sucks.
Once again gross exaggeration, combined with the chicken or egg choice.
Is all the world for you a dark dualistic dilemma where one is
constantly forced to make either/or choices between two or more
equally important factors?
Andrew wrote:
I don't fear processes, I fear rigidity. I fear people who can't comprehend the
content calling themselves "writers."
XML and rigid, universally mandated standards are not an answer. They treat the
symptoms of sick organizations. They don't cure the disease.
Inability to comprehend content is a reader problem, usually caused by
a combination of cobbled structure and poor writing.
If its rigidity you fear, then I join with you in that fear. But you
argue that process and standards spawn rigidity. I maintain that
rigidity is a human disease, and organic processes and standards
inoculate against the kind of arbitrary and capricious rigidity that is
spawned by humans in the inevitable chaos produced by the absence of
process and standards.
I would add that a sick organization can be most easily recognized
by the fact that it forces its TWs to use Microsoft Word. That,
in my view at least, indicates the organization has little or no
understanding of or interest in the technical documentation process.
====================
| Nullius in Verba |
====================
Dan Emory, Dan Emory & Associates
FrameMaker/FrameMaker+SGML Document Design & Database Publishing
Voice/Fax: 949-722-8971 E-Mail: danemory -at- primenet -dot- com
10044 Adams Ave. #208, Huntington Beach, CA 92646
---Subscribe to the "Free Framers" list by sending a message to
majordomo -at- omsys -dot- com with "subscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Learn how to develop HTML-based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver!
Dec. 7-8, 2000, Orlando, FL -- $100 discount for STC members.
http://www.weisner.com/training/dreamweaver_help.htm or 800-646-9989.
Your web site localized into 32 languages? Maybe not now, but sooner than you think. Download ForeignExchange's FREE paper, "3 steps to successful translation management" at http://www.fxtrans.com/3steps.html?tw.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
Previous by Author:
Re: Process kills the dot.com
Next by Author:
Re: Are we just secretaries?
Previous by Thread:
Re: Re: Process kills the dot.com
Next by Thread:
Re: Process kills the dot.com
Search our Technical Writing Archives & Magazine
Visit TechWhirl's Other Sites
Sponsored Ads