Discussing the dire times of the Israeli high-tech industry, Paula Stern says technical writing is going "no where fast". She has recently conducted a survey saying there are much more unemployed writers that there were several months ago. I have no information that contradics these numbers. Obviously, they sound reasonable. For example, they fit into the fact the a start-up company I had worked for a year ago, no longer exists.
What is the technical writer expected to do when the times get hard?
Paula says: learn DITA.
I'd refine this, and add: increase your vauability to the organization that pays your salary. I am for facing your clientle, you boss, whomever and boldly ask what would they like you to do in order to improve their business.
no onwe is likely to say they need 12 new user guides, 200 pages long each, and hand you a payment in advance. However, they're likely to help you help them to do a little better business.
Several years ago - where business were OK - I was asked to convert an 1000 topics-long RoboHelp project into FrameMaker. As profitable as this project may be, I told my employers there is no reason to convert, as Frame is less productive than RoboHelp. My assertion is questionable, of course, and I know there are many Frame fans that would love to fry me for this. However, with the customers in mind, you simply don't let them to do such a conversion. If the customer is eager to spend 1000 hours on documentation, they have to know there are several other ways to spend this budget and maybe gain things they never dreamt of.
This story took place in 2006.
Today, no one is expecting to gain more from their documentation, but they will be happy to gain whatever they are currently gaining, with half the budget. I say, go ahead and let them. Find ways to double your productivity. Ditch lously tools; learn new tools really fast; use Word if it works for you (although no writer that respects himself uses it any longer :)
Keep your customer in mind, and you'll make it past this dire times.
Showing posts with label DITA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DITA. Show all posts
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Monday, July 9, 2007
Katriel of Method M says that DITA is the least worse approach to documentation. I sadly agree. I don't know DITA, so what I am actually agreeing to, is the concept of "least worse". Whenever I find myself telling my managers about the poverty of the tools I use, I end up frustrated. They are willing to open up their check-books, it is me who tells them to save their money, as to be able to write, circulate for feedback and deliver 2000 topics/year, MS-Word is the only tool available.
MS-Word???
Yes, I answer, exactly because it is the least worse tool. Although I write with RoboHelp as a primary source, and CHM a primary output, I admit it is no better than Word.
But there is a solution, say the DITA people.
DITA, they say, will save me from myself. I admit that I don't exactly know what DITA does. It is said to ease the ability to deliver multiple types of outputs. However, I ask, why deliver multiple types of output in the first place? No one read printed documentation anymore, and for on-line readers, no one can tell the difference between PDF and CHM. They're both easy to navigate, search, and find what you are looking for.
Let's take a different angle. Suppose I throw everything I write to a single website. Suppose that this website is well protected (acceessible only to registered users, for example) and well accessible (it takes a fraction of a second to perform a search, and the search returns excellent results). Now, looking, for example, for installation guidelines for some product of mine, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the readers won't mind whether the piece of information they're after is titled "installation guide" or "installation notes for version 1.1.0.35" or "fix to defect #35022"?
If my assumption is correct, piling everything I write onto a single website will eliminate the entire single-sourcing empire (an empire of pit-falls, if I may). No more DOC-to-CHM, RoboHelp-to-PDF. Wow. This is a Wow, no less.
So, this leave me with what Katriel calls "DITA is a standard — and is implemented using topic-centered and minimalism (methodology)". I'd buy this guidlines anytime.
MS-Word???
Yes, I answer, exactly because it is the least worse tool. Although I write with RoboHelp as a primary source, and CHM a primary output, I admit it is no better than Word.
But there is a solution, say the DITA people.
DITA, they say, will save me from myself. I admit that I don't exactly know what DITA does. It is said to ease the ability to deliver multiple types of outputs. However, I ask, why deliver multiple types of output in the first place? No one read printed documentation anymore, and for on-line readers, no one can tell the difference between PDF and CHM. They're both easy to navigate, search, and find what you are looking for.
Let's take a different angle. Suppose I throw everything I write to a single website. Suppose that this website is well protected (acceessible only to registered users, for example) and well accessible (it takes a fraction of a second to perform a search, and the search returns excellent results). Now, looking, for example, for installation guidelines for some product of mine, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the readers won't mind whether the piece of information they're after is titled "installation guide" or "installation notes for version 1.1.0.35" or "fix to defect #35022"?
If my assumption is correct, piling everything I write onto a single website will eliminate the entire single-sourcing empire (an empire of pit-falls, if I may). No more DOC-to-CHM, RoboHelp-to-PDF. Wow. This is a Wow, no less.
So, this leave me with what Katriel calls "DITA is a standard — and is implemented using topic-centered and minimalism (methodology)". I'd buy this guidlines anytime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
