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.
The bulk of the comments in this thread have been quite interesting, but in general they seem to ignore one issue: quality. In my opinion, so long as we do not work with metrics to measure output quality, we cannot begin to claim we are "information engineers" (to borrow a term from another recent thread!).
Why do we so avoid this topic? Probably because it is more difficult than mechanical measures of "completed pages."
However, by coupling the release of documentation sets with helpdesk figures, for instance, and by instituting customer surveys and focus groups, we can begin to determine whether our efforts are actually making a favorable impact on the work lives of our customers.
I believe that this is a prospect which scares most writers and doc managers. Like it or not, the mindset of the writer has generally sort of a "fuzzy" orientation. We may understand technology, but we think verbally and not numerically.
While there are *many* things that companies can do for true productivity gains, any such measure absent a meaningful yardstick regarding the quality of the output is mostly window dressing--and may be very counterproductive.
Truth is, much documentation is crap. It may look beautiful and it may win awards, but if it does not do the job to effectively, accurately and efficiently convey the proper information to the users it is *still* crap. To me, that is the fundamental problem with most contests in our business--they lack the simple customer feedback to really *know* how good it is.
Another truth, so long as we are thinking about the *real world*--many companies are not willing to make meaningful changes that will actually effect documentation quality...especially if those changes will cost any money up front. For example, in my own tests I determined that for me to have two large-format monitors represents an actual productivity savings in the 10-12% range. I am able to keep the engineering source document opened in full-page view, the document I am working on also open in full-page view, and the various small windows I use often also open--all on two 21" CRTs. No fishing around from window to window, no need to strain to remember what is on windows now closed. When I set up my home office for telecommuting, therefore, I installed a dual-screen Matrox card and two Trinitrons. However, I have observed few companies who would even consider such an installation. Therefore, they are obviously willing to waste a great deal of money in lost productivity simply to save a few hundred dollars in equipment costs.
More enlightened doc managers, however, are constantly seeking ways to make their staff hours more productive--especially in reducing errors and reaching high levels of documentation quality.
RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for
competitive pricing or download a trial at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l4
---
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.
