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.
Subject:Re: the cost of SGML From:Simon North <snorth -at- TEDOPRES -dot- NL> Date:Tue, 9 Jan 1996 08:40:03 GMT
Chet, it can be argued (and I do) that one of the ancillary benefits of
adopting SGML is that the production of one or more DTDs, and the
accompanying analyses, necessitate a process approach. The resulting
work can be catalytic in bringing the true costs of information processing
(information in its' original, pre-computing days) and documentation
production.
I have wrestled with the problems of justifying the cost of documentation
efforts (including my own presence on the payroll) many times over the
years until a stint as a software quality assurance engineer stuck my nose
in the fact that the very point that it is difficult to identify the costs
_is_ the problem. As TAs we _all_ have our suspicions ... even certainties
that vast sums of money are being thrown at documentation - and often thrown
away.
Adopting SGML _is_ extremely expensive, and a company cannot often know how
expensive until it starts. Meantime it is (whatever it's using) probably
already spending a fortune on other tools and technologies ... and doesn't
have a _clue_ what that is costing it.
The adoption of SGML is, IMNSHO, a perfect way of getting a grip on
documentation costs and of approaching it as an _engineering_ activity.
