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: cross-reference between documents From:"Wing, Michael J" <mjwing -at- INGR -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:23:14 -0600
> >Either way works, either way is *not* easy. But one of those should
> be
> >considered if you're going to do serious publishing. Word,
> WordPerfect
> >and Ami Pro all offer some attempt at publishing, but in reality,
> they're
> >word processors with pretensions. They aren't really publishing
> tools.
> >
> >Word and WordPerfect have a single strong selling point: Everybody
> >uses it. Which is akin to saying, "We do it that way because we've
> >always done it that way." That is, no reason at all, just habit.
> >
> Somebody mentioned that WP packs can do things Frame can't. True. I
> can have
> five letters, three memos, and a flyer out of Word before Frame boots
> up.
> But Simply Written doesn't traffic in letters, memos, or flyers. We do
> long
> stuff mostly, and Frame can pull the guts out of Word when the page
> count
> rises.
>
> Tim Altom
>
In your attempt to paint Word merely as a secretary's tool, you elided
over other important aspects. It is true that Frame handles large
documents well; however, it seems that a Technical Writer's needs are
gearing more toward on-line. With HTML, HTMLhelp, WinHelp, and so
forth, the writer's need for huge 2000 page manuals is becoming less
frequent. Instead, reusable sections/topics can be maintained in
multiple (small documents) and linked where necessary.
To me, the top-down start on page 1 and end on page 2000 approach is
fading away. I don't need a bulk-handling expensive word processor. In
fact, I could use Notepad (for HTML) and any shareware program that
produces RTF with endnotes (for WinHelp) to create my source files.
Word actually exceeds my needs. That's because my job has evolved past
producing bulky manuals. I need compatibility and configurability in
the word processor. Two aspects of Word which I find invaluable for my
work are:
1) Macro capability. One of the main reasons I use Word is because I
can build on the application through VB. I have developed an integrated
GUI for Word that allows Developers to add topics to RTF files simply by
invoking and filling out the form. I have also done massive
tagged-ASCII to RTF/doc conversions through macros which even create
k-links and a-links out of index tags. Furthermore, I have read the
graphic file names and converted them to {bmct calls} automatically.
2) Word is available as a custom control in an application. For
example, it can be tied to a hyperlink in a database. In use, feature
data can be displayed in an application. Clicking on the feature could
place a selected document in view using the word custom control.
