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.
>I know STOP and I think it can be an effective means of designing print
documents.
>A key aspect of STOP is the technique often referred to as "layering."
>One drawback, of course, is redundancy. Another drawback is that each topic
is supposed to occupy a fixed amount of space.
>When Carte couldn't fit a topic within a two-page spread, he created a
fold-out page for that topic (in effect, a
three-page spread). Needless to say, this was a very labor-intensive
technique.
>David K. Farkas
>Professor
>Dept. of Technical Communication
That's a problem with so many of the fancy methodologies and layouts -- they
are labor-intensive, require specialized writing style, and don't
practically take into account efficiency, cost, and maintenance. For
example, the early William Horton dogma that everything has to be written
differently for online versus print. Or fancy multimedia or
application-integrated approaches such as (I think) Mary Deaton promoted.
What works in practice for writing tools, techniques, and design looks
different from the point of view of the overextended writer in the trenches,
compared to the mid-1990s visionary consultant promoting their specialized
services.
I use as my standard the mid-90s printed documentation for Word for Windows
-- a classic generic "3rd party computer manual" layout. Strangely, in that
version, the same material was also covered online, but apparently written
by a completely different team; both print and online were comprehensive,
yet not single-sourced.
Now my present company is an interesting, extreme case. There is no tech
writer; well, there is 1/3 of a person -- just barely enough to coordinate
the Dev writings and set up a system and occasionally press a button
labelled "Build docs". I have to nearly process-engineer myself out of
existence as a techwriter. Clearly, any writing environment and writing
style has to be very average, general-purpose, and industry-standard.
Rather than seeking an innovative layout of technical material, my concern
is to perfect an abstracted/derived ideal generic layout.
I'm on the lookout for ideal examples of computer documentation in the best
printed computer books in the bookstores. Those, rather than innovative
layouts by consultants, are my main standard setter and the best and most
relevant testing ground. What layout works for the best printed books in
the computer book section in the bookstore? That means more than the
theories of consultants promoting their special technique. My special
technique I promote is a super generic and efficient, low-maintenance,
standard, inexpensive layout, done well.
There is no magic better format that is inexpensive. I'd like to read more
about mastering compromise and getting the greatest docs for the lowest
cost, with sources that can be maintained by anyone. I'm out to get rid of
the traditional techwriter as a specialist presenting information in a
specialized way with specialized tools. Instead, the techwriter should
specialize in setting up easily maintainable docs that can be filled in and
edited by anyone on the team, and even built by anyone on the team.
Good and affordable docs probably use some aspects of STOP design. That is
a good strategy: don't adopt unusual layouts wholesale; only integrate a few
of the best aspects. Try to achieve what STOP does by slight adjustments of
very conventional doc layout. Layering and summary-first and right-sized
section length are techniques that can easily and naturally work within the
context of a conventional layout.
The only specialized technique I claim amounts to combining the best
features from various methodologies into classically effective and
inexpensive layout approach. I don't believe in revolutionary new
presentation approaches, but only incremental additional twists added onto
the proven, classic doc model.
Most specialized techniques just amount to taking a couple aspects of the
classic approach and taking them to an extreme, discarding all the other
items in the layout toolkit. The result is usually a narrow, impoverished,
and expensive layout. Overall, I would prefer theorist/consultants to show
how to extend, enhance, or improve the classic model. However, I do find
innovative methodologies interesting as a source of ideas I can steal to
apply to classic layout. But I don't take them seriously as a whole
approach to docs layout.
A landmark hotel, one of America's most beautiful cities, and
three and a half days of immersion in the state of the art:
IPCC 01, Oct. 24-27 in Santa Fe. http://ieeepcs.org/2001/
+++ Miramo -- Database/XML publishing automation. See us at +++
+++ Seybold SFO, Sept. 25-27, in the Adobe Partners Pavilion +++
+++ More info: http://www.axialinfo.comhttp://www.miramo.com +++
---
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.
