atw: Re: Vale technical writing?
- From: "Christine Kent" <cmkentau@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:28:28 +1100
It's a bigger issue than even Tony is saying, and I see XML as a step on a
path rather than a destination.
Publishing failed to grasp the significance of the changes being brought
about by technology and is going broke fast. Those changes are not just
about the tools used. For example, in publishing, it is not just about
putting a novel into a format for a reader. It is about questioning if, as
a society, novels are morphing into something else, and if so, what?
When you try to convert anything you have written for paper format to some
kind of on-line format, you realise that you have to change what you want to
communicate and the way you communicate it as well as the tools you will use
to communicate it through. The form IS, to a certain extent, determining
the function.
My personal learning on this level is that everything I write must be in
screen sized bites, no matter what I might prefer, and my suspicion is that
we have bred and trained a generation that is only capable of both
structuring and decoding information that IS in screen sized bites.
While there are still "old school" people who read novels, who can read
manuals particularly for high level technical information, and who do learn
something in a classroom, there will be some need for materials produced the
way we produce them now, but many of us are approaching retirement age and
when we are gone, what will best serve the generations following us through?
I personally have no idea where this will end with both technical writing
and instructional design, but I do know that the current forms for both are
culturally archaic, in that much of what we do serves little or no real
purpose. We all know the door stop jokes, and we also know that much of the
training we deliver does not result in well trained users of whatever. I
would not be expressing Tony's certainty that XML is the future, but I am
certain that the past is not the future.
I wish is could be. I don't much like this new world. But I imagine we are
stuck with it.
Christine
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Margaret Hassall
Sent: Sunday, 26 February 2012 12:46 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Vale technical writing?
Hi Geoffrey and Austechies,
Sounds like a great talking point to me, and I'll probably ask Tony some of
those questions at the presentation (when I hear more than just the
outline).
But I think the issue has been around for a while - even before XML and DITA
arrived. For a long time we have had the "content is king" versus "quality
or crappy content" versus "but it needs to be formatted" arguments (TECHWR-L
archives contain hundreds of posts on this and similar topics).
Good format can help usability, readability, and make content far more
accessible, and crappy content is NOT better than no content at all. But I
have seen way too many people so focused on getting a format to work that
they run out of time to get the content right. Their hand-crafting produces
good looking documents but is their content up to standard and can it be
re-used?
I now have to deliver information in many different channels - old fashioned
PDFs for traditional user guides, online help (CHM, webhelp), wikis, and now
I'm looking at eReaders and their various formats. My first efforts with
eReaders sent me back to hand-crafting. With new delivery formats coming
about all the time, I don't think we have time for hand-crafting any more.
And output is not the only issue: I have to build many documents using input
from a wide range of people - I'd like to streamline this workflow as much
as possible. I often undo their careful tweaking so that I can use their
content with other work.
What I'm looking for from the presentation is to find out if tools have
evolved enough so that they will allow me to concentrate on the CONTENT and
workflow without having to worry too much about the formatting. Like the car
drivers of old, I think it is a fair question to ask if I'd be prepared to
put up with a simpler look if it meant my information could go further.
While the output may not be as "whizz-bang" as I can create with other tools
at the moment, this doesn't mean it will always be like that.
While I agree that delivering information to people that is relevant,
readable, and usable is an overriding technical writing goal, surely we
should always be looking for ways to make that process more efficient.
I'll be at the talk, and happy to discuss this further.
Margaret - wearing her Tech Writer hat, but acknowledges her President, ASTC
Vic hat as well.
On 26 February 2012 11:33, Geoffrey Marnell wrote:
Hi austechies
Some of you will have received, as I did, an invitation to attend an ASTC
presentation by DITA evangelist Dr Tony Self. Here is the outline of the
presentation Tony intends to give, exactly as received in the invitation:
<snip
...
...>
We write to impart practical information to people who need it, and in ways
that maximise their uptake of that information. That's our overriding goal
as technical writers, and it's why most of us do fuss about issues of
readability and usability. So why should we adopt any technology that limits
us in our ability to meet that overriding goal? Technology should not be our
master; it is the needs of our readers that is paramount.
Other related posts:
