Re: Multi-purpose / Single source

Subject: Re: Multi-purpose / Single source
From: "T.W. Smith" <techwordsmith -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:55:27 -0500


I don't mind agreeing to disagree on this one.


On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 14:27:17 -0600, David Neeley <dbneeley -at- gmail -dot- com> wrote:
> Let me respond a bit to this point now that I have a little more time.
>
> Remember, please, that I began by assuming there is not an
> already-existing competence with Frame and WWP...thus, two fairly
> substantial learning curves to climb right there.

Yes, but doable, IMHO, morseo than XML + database expertise.

> Next, with Frame and WWP, a complex solution is often outsourced for
> setup to consultants.

It doesn't have to be.

> Remember the post that said that the *manager*
> must do a highly conditioned Frame project with many variables and
> couldn't even turn it over to writers in her group because of its
> complexity?

I recommend considering more seasoned writers.


> Do you suppose this is a mark of an "easy" solution? I think not!

Nope. But I disagree that FrameMaker and/or WWP are unusable by
run-of-the-mill tech writers. They are just tools.

>
> Next, for a new product without existing docs, and with the need to do
> multiple versions of the product, I submit that even if much of the
> initial setup must be outsourced to a consultant, the result will
> still be far more flexible for future demands than Frame/WWP.

Well, I don't agree that FM + WWP must be outsourced. I do agree that
XML is more flexible. But, I recommend considering what you want to
use the content for. If for print (incl. PDF and press) and online
help, then the range of your flexibility is defined and FM +_ WWP
meets it. Want more flexibility? Go with structured FM for now + WWP,
so you can go to XML at some point in the future if needed.

> Your focus seems to be nearly all on the authoring environment.

My thoughts are that an efficient authoring environment lets the
author focus on content, yes.


This
> is a non-issue today, since more and more XML authoring tools have
> gained many of the same sorts of "bells and whistles" as other, older
> tools.

Such as? I submit that FrameMaker, Ventira, and even Word are much
more efficient as authoring environments than XML Spy or XMetal.


> I also doubt Adobe's sincerity in maintaining Frame as a viable
> product over the typical lifespan of a new product line.


Agreed. This would be a consideration. In fact, I might be persuaded
to hold off grand plans of single sourcing until I see what happens
with FrameMaker with regards to Longhorn in 2006.

> In fact,
> Bruce Chisen (Adobe CEO) gave an interview just prior to the launch of
> Frame 7.0 in which was for a time on the Internet. In it, he stated
> that InDesign--with a more modern and modular architecture--would
> become the code base for long document handling in future. At the same
> time, roughly, many of the Adobe Frame developers were either
> reassigned or laid off in California and the support and development
> of the product was outsourced (India, IIRC).

Okay. I don't put much stock in what Adobe CEOs say, to be honest.
But, I see what you are saying. With a large FrameMaker installed
base, are you saying that Adobe would discontinue FrameMaker without
providing a reasonable way of migrating content to InDesign or
whatever?

> To me, these signs appear fairly conclusive that Frame as we know it
> today is not much longer for the world. Thus, basing a new and complex
> multiple-version product on Frame today seems, at best, to be
> ill-advised.

FrameMaker is still best of breed. If it were discontinued tomorrow,
the installed version you have would continue to work on your current
OS for a decade. No worries.

> For those with existing Frame document bases, were I to speculate I'd
> suggest that the time will come when a transition of some sort becomes
> necessary. To that end, I suspect it makes great sense to transition
> the existing docs to structured form if they are not already created
> that way. Then, a transition to any other viable approach becomes much
> more trivial....whether moving the entire thing into a CMS, to an XML
> authoring environment, or to another tool (possibly InDesign as its
> long-doc and XML capabilities continue to expand).

Well, InDesign doesn't do XML or long docs, right? So that doesn't get
your documentation done. FrameMaker is an efficient way to author
docs, today. FM + WWP can be done in-house, I argue and disagree with
you there, and FM + WWP does not require database admins, programmers,
or other technical support ... it's an efficient way of authoring
content for publication that lets a writer focus on content. So, if
you suggest XML is more flexible than FrameMaker, yes, but what are
your needs? If you suggest XML will outlast FrameMaker, yes. But
what's the cost of going with XML now versus using the efficiencies of
FrameMaker ... will there be a way to migrate FrameMaker content to
InDesign or whatever comes next, etc. Dunno. It depends on your
priorities, I guess.


> If you have never done such a document transition from one platform to
> another, you will quickly learn that it is by no means a "slam
> dunk"--especially with ongoing updates and release schedules to
> conform to. This is why I would not suggest *beginning* a new product
> line's documentation in Frame today--as much as I like it.

It's not a slam dunk. But, why invest in Windows. I mean, do you think
Windows will be around forever? Consider all those companies investing
in Microsoft Office ... surely that will go away, too. Etc.

> But then, there is in me and I suspect in many others an element of
> familiarity that offsets the long time and the frustrations involved
> in becoming used to Frame's own quirkiness. But then, the mind also
> tends to forget unpleasant things fairly quickly...
>
> Finally, I suggest you study the current state of the art in XML
> tools. With each passing month, more user friendly documentation
> environments show up...and, as I have said previously * think, one
> alternative I would consider is OpenOffice with export to DocBook or
> one of its variants...especially with the impending introduction of
> 2.0 and its various improvements. (I am presently running 1.9.65 at
> home--and it is impressive!).

Sounds cool. Sounds like you are suggesting OpenOffice is a better
choice for long documents than FrameMaker for Windows ... I don't know
enough to disagree. What's the press output like? Can you get it to
online help fairly easily? Etc.


======
T.

Remember, this is online. Take everything with a mine of salt and a grin.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROBOHELP X5 - SEE THE ALL NEW ROBOHELP X5 IN ACTION!

RoboHelp X5 is a giant leap forward in Help authoring technology, featuring all new Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author support, PDF and XML support and much more! View an online demo: http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrldemo

---
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- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.



Follow-Ups:

References:
Re: Multi-purpose / Single source: From: David Neeley
Re: Multi-purpose / Single source: From: Sharon Burton
Re: Multi-purpose / Single source: From: T.W. Smith
Re: Multi-purpose / Single source: From: David Neeley
Re: Multi-purpose / Single source: From: T.W. Smith
Re: Multi-purpose / Single source: From: David Neeley

Previous by Author: Re: Use of Comma [Punctuation]
Next by Author: Re: Multi-purpose / Single source
Previous by Thread: Re: Multi-purpose / Single source
Next by Thread: Re: Multi-purpose / Single source


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads