atw: Structured Content - was Fields of Tech Communication

James Hunt wrote:
> Er, no, Bill, I don't dismiss it out of hand at all. I am just bemused 
> by people who reinvent a wheel that was running perfectly in 1984.

What happened in 1984? I must have missed it because I don't remember any 
"perfect" way to produce and deliver information - and there still isn't.

> My basic point, which Bill missed, was that problems of document 
> structure were solved, from a writer's point of view, in a perfectly 
> satisfactory manner twenty years ago. 

OK tell me how, 20 years ago, I could create documentation (print manual and 
online help) for a software product that is modular and customisable (and 
therefore different for each client but must be seen to be coherent and 
relevant to each) and is produced in six different languages? - without 
employing an army to maintain it.

> The software to implement the solution is free, 
> and still exists and runs on everything. (Yes, everything.)

You still haven't named this wonderful product.
 
> There is a fundamental difference between a database manager's view 
> of structure and a writer's view of structure, and my view is that of a 
> writer. 

And so is Bill's. And so is mine. Do you not use styles and templates? That's 
structuring content - basic structuring, but structuring all the same - 
XML/SGML just allows you to take that a step or two further.

> I want to get words on paper or screen, in a form that people 
> like and find helpful, and be able to revise the work quickly as 
> necessary. 

Don't we all.

> There are no perfect tools for this task: everyone here complains 
> about Word, and so on, and all tools have their irritations. But 
> there are no convincing, cheap XML/SGML toolsets available for the 
> kind of work I do.

There are some extremely expensive tools, there are also cheap tools, there are 
even free tools, there are open standards to cut down on development costs, you 
can use FrameMaker in its structured mode, even the latest and greatest Word 
purports to do it - this argument does not stand up. I suggest you do some more 
research before making such statements.

OK the kind of work you do may not require XML/SGML at all - there is a cost 
involved in getting things going, mostly in terms of time to work out the 
content architecture and you wouldn't do it without a good reason - but that's 
no reason to disparage XML/SGML for those people whose work *does* benefit.

> I consider this an important point. It is possible for an individual 
> writer to buy a few thousand dollars worth of hardware and software, 
> download freeware, etc, and produce good-looking - even print 
> quality - work that people like to use. This is not possible in the XML/SGML 
> world, where rather primitive systems typically cost scores of 
> thousands of dollars, minimum, and the writer has no control over and 
> usually doesn't even see the output.

You are basing your assumptions on a very narrow set of facts and only one of 
any number of scenarios for structured content. This *is* possible in the 
XML/SGML world. Yes there are some vendors and consultants out there that 
charge like wounded bulls and wouldn't know what makes information useful or 
readable if it hit them. You have obviously come across these people.

There are also some very talented and clued-up people that are solving problems 
- do you *want* to go on maintaining six different versions of the same 
information *by hand*?
 
> Bill's world view is that of a database manager, and I'm sure he does 
> it well. However, I have come across XML/SGML proponents who calmly 
> dismiss my concerns about readability, accessibility, design, 
> typography, and so on as  "decorating documents".  I know I'm just 
> playing in a corner of the sandbox here, but to dismiss the entire 
> printing tradition of the Western world in such a way is breathtaking 
> zealotry.

And to dismiss the whole future of structured content (notice I didn't say the 
future of documentation - again, not all documents require structuring with 
XML/SGML) is equally breathtaking in its bigotry.
 
> Does XML/SGML have a future outside Big Defence projects? My guess is 
> "no" - it's been the coming thing since 1969, and still seems a long 
> way away for everyday use on ordinary corporate work.

I am using XML at the moment for a catalogue that is both printed and web-based 
- hardly a Big Defence project and certainly corporate.

Because I am an "expert" in content, due to my years as a tech writer, I was 
tasked with working out the overall strategy, the content architecture, and the 
tool chain that would be most appropriate. It has been very challenging but 
also extremely interesting and rewarding (rewarding from the client's point of 
view too with regard to maintenance, translation costs, and simply what they 
are able to do with the information).

My next project is to work out the structure for the manual and online help 
system that I have already written. This will be used as a "template" for 
future materials in the same way that an unstructured template would be used 
but with the added bonus of some parts being able to be generated from the 
software itself (less error prone), managed reuse of repeated text, and the 
ability to offer customised help for customised software at a much reduced 
maintenance overhead. Still not Big Defence project and still very corporate.
 
> Apart from the use of the term "authoring" (nasty case of verbing a 
> noun, that), I like the rest of Bill's post. It's interesting 
> to think that our trade could divide into two halves, XML persons in 
> defence and everyone else. I will cheerfully predict that if that happens, 
> the 
> XMLers will be trained and accredited, and working in full-time, 
> low-paid jobs filling out containers on screens. The rest of 
> us will do all the other stuff.

While I will happily see a future of structurally-aware writers being paid 
handsomely for their content architecture work as part of the authoring process 
(form-based XML is not a good way to do XML for most documents and anyone that 
knows what they are doing would not implement such a process for anything 
except form-type information).

-Melanie

PS On the subject of permanent -v- contract I think most people are emotionally 
suited to one or other and issues of money, security, longevity (this six week 
contract has lasted over a year so far), etc, are incidental to which way you 
prefer to work.


**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to 
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.

To search the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts: