Tool efficiencies, Was Word up..

["Tim Altom" <taltom -at- simplywritten -dot- com>]

I think my point sailed several feet over your head, Andrew. At least, you
didn't deal with it. The point is not whether "I" believe this or that. The
point is what LED me to my conclusions. I presented those points. You did
not refute them. My opinion is shared by many of my colleagues, and even
Word experts acknowledge the tool's shortcomings. Let us discuss efficiency,
its definition, and how to achieve it, not whether I used the word "I". This
forum is best served, I think, with reasoned discussion, debate, and the
presentation of supporting evidence. I make a point below. You may discuss
it if you wish.

My central assertion is any tool that makes the writer backtrack, rebuild,
reinstall, or otherwise not write is, by definition, inefficient and causes
delays. Any tool that is robust, with reliable automation and features that
allow the writer to save time is, by definition, efficient. I'd think that
this would appeal to you, as much as you champion the writer who just digs
in and starts making dust rise from the keyboard. It seems logical to me
that anything that forces the writer to take a single step backwards would
be abhorrent to you or any other writer, a curse upon the earth as virulent
and damnable as any rogue processes or plans. Worse, perhaps, because you
can often ignore management glitches, but the tool's glitches must be dealt
with. Yet, although you loudly disdain processes, single source, or
planning, you defend the choice of an inefficient tool that can certainly
eat up as much time and treasure. This seems irreconcilable to me.

By the way, I define efficiency mathematically, as Output/Input * Time.
Output is our work. Input is what goes into the work. Time is a time frame,
which for our company (being trapped in the tar of a management paradigm) is
generally a long one, at least a year. We expect our clients to take such a
time view, as well, which is where you and I have a disagreement. We here
maintain that a "just get busy and write" document has a poor chance of
fitting into the client's new needs in a year, no matter how momentarily
good it may seem or how many awards it garners at that moment. Such a
document is inefficient. It may appeal to critics, reviewers, or even users,
but it still carries a high probability of being inefficient, because it
cannot be easily reused. In our view, a document must have both attributes:
usability for the user, and reusability for the client. Nothing else will
do.

However, let's grant your preference for a short time-frame. If Word is, as
I and so many other claim, fragile, capricious, and prone to corrupt files
and system lockups, does that not interfere with the short-term writer? As a
contractor, does it not imperil your own profit margins? This is not a
personal preference; This is a diamond-hard business decision that can be
justified with dollars, projected and measured. If you would care to argue
an opposing business case, please do so.

Tim Altom
Simply Written, Inc.
Featuring FrameMaker and the Clustar(TM) System
"Better communication is a service to mankind."
317.562.9298
Check our Web site for the upcoming Clustar class info
http://www.simplywritten.com



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Develop HTML-based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver! (STC Discount.)
**NEW DATE/LOCATION!** January 16-17, 2001, New York, NY.
http://www.weisner.com/training/dreamweaver_help.htm or 800-646-9989.

Take XML and Tech Writing courses online!  Our instructor-led courses
(4-6 hrs/wk) give you "hands on" experience at your convenience. STC members
get 20% off!  http://www.online-learning.com/index.html.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.