Hi Geoffrey In your past two e-mails, you have used the phrases "which you now admit", and "by Tony's own admission", and in both cases I have made no such claim or admission. I don't know how you manage to read so much between the lines. If you read the actual words, the only time I used the word "rhetorical" was to point out that *your* words, "Is Tony really saying [*insert words Tony never wrote here*]?", were phrased (by you) as a rhetorical question. Maybe my style of writing for a one paragraph synopsis of what is meant to be a thought-provoking and challenging discussion is rhetorical. I'm not really fussed. I don't see using a rhetorical question as being a sin which deserves banishment from the profession. However, I do get more fussed when words are continually put into my mouth. I couldn't find a challenge in your paragraph numbered one; all I read was a hypothetical argument and a rhetorical question. It's a shame your mind seems to be closed to anything I might say while you rage at things you imagine I might say. The "any colour... so long as it is black" metaphor refers to "standard processes, simple components, and standardised production systems". A variation from standard induces an additional cost. As a profession, technical communicators are being asked to do more in less time... in other words, to be more efficient. When I was writing aircraft manuals decades ago, the projects ran for about 18 months. The technical writers at Nokia are documenting products that have a six month life cycle. Efficiency requires compromise. When the customer says "I want a red manual in two weeks", our response might be, "I can give you a red manual in eight weeks or a black manual in two weeks... your choice". Tony >>> "Geoffrey" 28/02/12 9:06 AM >>> 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: 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