Re: Future use

[Suzanne Gerrior <suzanne -at- JAZZMAIL -dot- COM>]

Hello Kimberly and Marci,

I am in the same situation. I just say, "Feature is currently under
development and not yet available."


Suzanne Gerrior
Documentation Specialist
Jazz Media Network
Tel: (514) 931-7009, ext. 255
Fax: (514) 931-9495
suzanne -at- jazzmail -dot- com

-----Original Message-----
From: Kimberly Green <kimberly -dot- green -at- CHEETAHNET -dot- COM>
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU <TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU>
Date: February 24, 1998 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: Future use


>Marci,
>
>We use "Not available in Version 1.1" (the version number for the
>release we are documenting). This is not a positive selling phrase, it
>just states the fact and does not promise anything.
>
>I am in a very similar situation. I am trying to document a constantly
>changing software product with changing priorities and changing
>schedules.  Does anyone have any tips for working effectively in this
>situation?
>
>Thanks,
>Kimberly
>
>        ----------
>        From:  Marci Abels[SMTP:mabels -at- CSIKS -dot- COM]
>        Sent:  Tuesday, February 24, 1998 8:34 AM
>        To:  TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>        Subject:  Future use
>
>        Hello,
>
>        I know this has been discussed before, and I've looked in the
>archives
>        and am still looking for a better way. We are documenting a
>developing
>        software package. Several features are not yet operational,
>though they
>        are planned for future implementation, some features are on the
>menu but
>        not operational because they are now obsolete, as far as the
>programmers
>        are concerned, and some features are still up in the air
>regarding
>        future implementation.
>
>        In the past, I used "For future release" which served us well.
>This
>        iteration, however, we have several features that will go away,
>some of
>        them were operational in the past but are no longer so. Some
>were
>        planned for future implementation, but have been dropped from
>the
>        planning schedule for various reasons. And sill others will
>eventually
>        be implemented, as soon as the programmers have time. I tried
>        "Implementation currently under review" but we have some people
>who
>        dislike that. So, I am looking for a statement to use that holds
>no
>        promises for the future, but says "Don't bother with this, it
>doesn't
>        work now." Of course, we wnat something more positive than the
>simple
>        truth, that the feature is not operational and we don't really
>know if
>        it ever will be.  :-)
>
>        I'm on digest, so if you have any ideas for me, please send them
>to me
>        and I will summarize for the list.
>        --
>        Marci Abels
>        http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Acres/2592/
>        CSI, Inc,
>        http://www.csi.com
>
>
>
>        Send commands to listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g., SIGNOFF
>TECHWR-L)
>        Search archives at:
>http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html,
>
>
>