Re: Revising Evergreen Documents

[Beth Agnew <bagnew -at- INSYSTEMS -dot- COM>]

Mark Baker wrote:

> Beth Agnew wrote:
>
> >Nobody wants to keep tinkering with a document.
>
> On the contrary, every writer I know wants to be constantly tinkering with
> their documents. And tinkering with documents is generally a good thing as
> it allows for error correction, clarification, addition of useful material.
> If people are reluctant to do it it is because it is so costly and so hard
> to manage at the document level. This is one of the great advantages of
> content management systems over document management systems. Content
> management systems let you tinker to your heart's content with very little
> cost or management overhead.

Sorry, Mark, I think you inferred something erroneous from my statement. I'm
not against improving documents to correct errors or add useful material. I
absolutely do NOT want to keep making piddly little revisions to any document
just because we think it's "better" that way. Documents are like software in
that respect -- yes, you can keep improving them, but the creeping elegance
will soon reach a point of diminishing return. The effort expended in revisions
is greater than the benefit of having a revised document. Tinkering with a
document, or content, is going to eat up my time. At some point, these babies
have to be colored "done".

Content management systems are fine if the content doesn't keep changing. No
matter how effectively they are set up, new content still requires an
expenditure of overhead.

Revising documents ad infinitem is like moving the finish line in a marathon
road race. No thanks.
--Beth
bagnew -at- insystems -dot- com