atw: Re: Vale technical writing?
- From: "Geoffrey" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:02:35 +1100
Tony
Have you ever thought that your style of writing -which you now admit to
being somewhat rhetorical-is just not suited to this profession. Maybe it
works in copy-writing and marketing. Silly me for reading your words
literally.
And no, I know exactly what you mean when you talk about XML as an enabling
tool in publishing (and it would only be a duffer who might have thought I
was talking about the XML code the lies behind MS Word, InDesign etc). I've
been using Adobe FrameMaker to generate XML-tagged documentation for
donkey's years (and SGML-tagged documentation before that) and so I can
attest from experience to the continuing problems in generating decently
formatted documents.
By the way, you haven't addressed the challenge in my first numbered
paragraph: would you tell a client to bugger off and take black-only
documentation when they explicitly wanted green documentation or pink? Or
were you only being ironical, rhetorical, quasi-funny or whatever when you
made your claim that the age of customer choice is over?
Perhaps if you rewrote your outline in a way that gave the literal-minded,
intelligent reader no opportunity to misunderstand your point, you would not
only better reveal your skills as a professional communicator, but also
attract a few more folk to your talk.
Dr Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
P: 03 9596 3456
M: 0419 574 668
F: 03 9596 3625
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anthony Self
Sent: Monday, 27 February 2012 11:09 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Vale technical writing?
Hi Geoffrey (and austechies)
Wow! From one paragraph you've managed to divine my entire talk and 4,000
word essay from a mere one paragraph synopsis!
Just a few clarifications.
>>(Henry Ford had a monopoly on the market; we don't.) <<
In 1898, Henry Ford's company made one car (called the Quadricycle). He made
another in 1899, and a third one in 1900. These cars were hand-built. At the
zenith of Model T production, one car rolled off the assembly line every 60
seconds. As my talk explains, Henry Ford created a mass market, but he never
had a monopoly on the market. Before the Model T, Belgium made more cars
than the United States.
>> If XML publishing and DITA offered more efficient means of documenting
AND offered us readability and usability at least equal with what our
current methods offer us, perhaps we might sit up and listen. But, by Tony's
own admission, they do not.<<
You've put words into my mouth. I made no such admission in the one
paragraph synopsis. To the contrary, my talk explains how quality improves
in the move from hand-crafting to assembly line and automation. Maybe it is
time to "sit up and listen"?
>>is Tony really saying that the very best that XML and DITA will ever be
able to give us is one-colour-fits-all documentation?<<
I realise that this was a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway.
No.
If you want to hear what I'm really saying, you can come along to the talk,
rather than guessing from a one paragraph synopsis and some random
preconceptions.
I don't mention XML publishing, and I think my definition of XML publishing
is very different to yours, Geoffrey. Microsoft Word uses an XML file
format, as does Adobe InDesign. These XML-based software tools are used for
hand-crafting documents. But they are not what I'm talking about when I say
that XML is an enabling platform for document engineering and automation.
Henry Ford found machine tools to be the enabling technology for his change
in the production process. XML is the enabling technology for DITA, but DITA
is a methodology (process) rather than a technology. Just as Ford's assembly
line was a process rather than a technology.
Finally, back to your thinking that Ford had a monopoly. The car "marques"
that were around before the Ford Motor Company had made its first car
included Akron, American De Dion, Auburn, Baker Electric, Buffalo, Canda,
Clark Steam, Collins Electric, Hewitt-Lindstrom, Peerless, and Searchmont.
Heard of any of these? They went broke by ignoring technological change,
rejecting the new processes of their competitors as inflexible, not
bothering about efficiency, and offering customers cars in any colour they
wanted.
Cheers
Tony
Other related posts:
