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 am not sure that the structured "revolution" is stalled in any way. I see more and more of my clients moving toward structured authoring in various forms. Some of them are doing it in environments that are familiar to them (like FrameMaker) and others are moving to desktop- or browser-based XML editors.
I also don't see that structured and WYSIWYG writing are always mutually exclusive. FrameMaker has supported structured authoring at least since the mid-90s. In my opinion, they have merged structured and WYSIWYG authoring very well. FrameMaker's EDD model of applying formatting based on structure was brilliant and ahead of its time and still works well. FrameMaker is a "commercial solution" and a "true structured writing solution" at the same time.
I look at it this way: sooner or later, your structured content has to be "composed" for presentation to users, perhaps on paper or in a browser. In some systems, the composition is done at the end of the line and is mainly hands-off. Structured FrameMaker does its composition at the authoring state. Admittedly, this can cause problems when authors are distracted by the presentation rather than the content, but I don't see this as a major hindrance. And you still are working with vendor-neutral XML.
I would be interested in what you think it would look like to "break out of this stalemate." In my opinion, there will continue to be a move to structure in various forms, but there will always be a market for WYSIWYG editors.
Rick Quatro
Carmen Publishing Inc.
rick -at- frameexpert -dot- com
585-366-4017
-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+rick=rickquatro -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com [mailto:techwr-l-bounces+rick=rickquatro -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On Behalf Of mbaker -at- analecta -dot- com
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:23 PM
To: 'Dave C'; 'Tech Writing'
Subject: RE: Structured stuff for the beginner
The structured revolution is actually stalled in a protracted and bitter ground war against the forces of WYSIWYG. Structured writing is about writing in a way that conforms to a prescribed structure. Structures may be prescribed for many different reasons, but the key point is that if you want writers to conform to a structured, you have to show them the structure, not a preview of a particular output.
The partisans of WYSITYG (which is to say, most of the large vendors) fight back against this by aggressively wrapping WYSIWYG shells over any structured format that is propose, and by preferring and championing any structured format that is easier to mask behind WYSIWYG, or is so complicated that it is indecipherable without some kind of interface over it. DITA happens to be a format that meets both these criteria, which is why so many vendors are pushing it now.
The reason for this is very simple: tools need a viable economic model, a way to sell you something that is proportional to the size of your operation and the extent of your usage. Pure structured writing tends not to do this. It supports writing in pretty simple and inexpensive editors, does not require a live connection to a repository, and performs publishing in batch. There is no way for a vendor to make money off that (and only limited ways for a consultant to make money off it). DITA, on the other hand, provides a viable economic model for vendors and consultants.
Thus if an organization insists on a commercial solution, they are unlikely to get a true structured writing solution. They are likely to get a solution that requires the use of an expensive proprietary editor with a live connection to an expensive proprietary CMS, because this model allows vendors to sell more seats as the client expands. Thus the structured writing revolution is kind of stalemated, except for those willing to use more open-source solutions and do a little thinking and building for themselves.
What this means on the tools front is that you have another kind of stalemate between the traditional WYSIWYG kind of tools trying to bring the structured formats (largely DITA) under their traditional interfaces, and the structured tools (mostly XML editors) trying to create interfaces that look as much like Word as possible. There are certainly people in the industry that would like to break out of this stalemate, but the economics of the thing make it difficult.
I have a book on this subject that will be coming out later in the year.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+mbaker=analecta -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com [mailto:techwr-l-bounces+mbaker=analecta -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On Behalf Of Dave C
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 11:39 PM
To: Tech Writing <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Subject: Structured stuff for the beginner
Jumping back into the tech-wr âsoupâ again, I find I missed the whole structured revolution.
Some basic questions: what authoring tools are being used to generate, for example (for no particular reason), DITA?
Are word processors like Word now going by the way in favor of structured authoring tools? Is MS upping Wordâs game to join the structured fray?
Any pointers to web sites you can recommend?
Thanks,
Dave
(running before he hits the groundâ)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com
Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com
Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com
Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com
Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com
