Re: The eyes have it. Or they don't.
Dick,
I think you need to make a distinction between page design that contributes
to the readability of information and page design that actually carries the
semantics of the information. Readability (or the lack of it) may contribute
to your ability to grasp the semantics of the information, but they are
still there to be grasped, if, perhaps, with greater effort. On the other
hand if the semantics of the information is actually contained in the page
design, then if the design is lacking, the semantics will cease to be
available at all.
There are, it seems to me, only a very limited set of circumstances in which
it is appropriate to encode information semantics in the page layout. (I'd
be open to the argument that there were none.) On the other hand, page
design will always have an impact on the readability of content though
probably, as you suggest, far more for some people than for others.
I think we're in violent agreement, Mark. To me the only point of page design (in a tech writing context) is readability. However I think readability encompasses design elements that give the reader clues as to the relative importance of different elements, help the reader process information in a useful sequence, etc. If you are suggesting that making a number 1 heading bigger than a number 2 heading or choosing to start headings to the left of the text column (for example) is an impermissible encoding of information semantics, then perhaps we do disagree. But I can't imagine that you are making that argument.
But I would suggest that the cause of readability is not best served by
allowing or expecting authors to be both writers and page designers at the
same time. Apart from the man-cannot-serve-two-masters issues, there is
always the danger that the writer will, accidentally or on purpose, fall
into expressing information semantics in page design, with potentially fatal
consequences for the reusability of the content.
I completely agree that we should not _expect_ authors to be both writers and page designers. For those with the requisite background and training, though, and enough discipline to avoid the sort of commingling you object to, I don't see a reason not to _allow_ them to. I've consistently advocated for letting people do what they do well, offering them training if they want it in things they do less well, and relieving them of duties they're ill-suited for. I much prefer this kind of flexible management model to that of defining slots according to some paradigm and trying to fill them with people as if they were fungible. Division of labor, yes. But division of labor according to the abilities of the individuals involved.
It is clearly the case that page design must be sensitive to the semantics
of the text (the presentation of warnings comes to mind). However the fact
that the content is a warning, and the semantics of that warning should
still be clear even if the content is viewed as plain text. These days you c
an never be sure that content won't be separated from its page design.
(Consider, for example, Google's view as HTML option for PDF documents.)
Well, that's a particularly bad example, because a PDF is not generally constructed in a way that any sort of semantic structure is preserved, and Google can't distinguish anything but text size/font/bold/italic characteristics. In any chain that begins with a schema and an author and ends in multiple output media, it's possible to retain the semantic information for the benefit of whatever engine is generating the final output.
Avoiding WYSIWYG authoring helps to ensure the integrity both of the content
and of the page design. It helps to ensure that semantics are not
transferred from content to design, and to ensure that page design is
applied with complete consistency.
Maybe, in an ideal world, or at least with software such as you've described in the past that gives the author a way to generate well-formed output regardless of typing ability or momentary lapses in attention.
Still, the actual error rate of real human beings goes down if they can get some visual feedback on what they're doing--in at least one medium. (I'm perfectly willing for that medium to be a special proofing template and to let the various engines apply whatever other _real_ templates are going to be required for actual output.)
Dick
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SEE THE ALL NEW ROBOHELP X5 IN ACTION: RoboHelp X5 is a giant leap forward
in Help authoring technology, featuring Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author support, PDF and XML support and much more! http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrldemo
From a single set of Word documents, create online Help and printeddocumentation with ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 7 Professional, a new yearly
subscription service offering free updates and upgrades, support, and more.
http://www.doctohelp.com
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -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.
Follow-Ups:
- Re: The eyes have it. Or they don't., shankAtIndiaDotcom
References:
The eyes have it. Or they don't.: From: Dick Margulis
Re: The eyes have it. Or they don't.: From: Mark Baker
Previous by Author:
The eyes have it. Or they don't.
Next by Author:
Possibly interesting resource on outsourcing
Previous by Thread:
Re: The eyes have it. Or they don't.
Next by Thread:
Re: The eyes have it. Or they don't.
Search our Technical Writing Archives & Magazine
Visit TechWhirl's Other Sites
Sponsored Ads