Re: Tool efficiencies, Was Word up..

[Andrew Plato <intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

"Tim Altom" wrote...
 
> I think my point sailed several feet over your head, Andrew. At least, you
> didn't deal with it. 

Sigh. More personal attacks. 

> 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. 

Yes. But FrameMaker+SGML  has shortcomings, PageMaker has shortcomings, and I
am very certain the canned solution you sell to clients also has serious and
significant shortcomings. 

I also assert that OF COURSE you think your solutions are the best and
objectively perfect. You're not acknowledging your own bias, Tim.  

> Let us discuss efficiency,
> its definition, and how to achieve it, not whether I used the word "I". 

That's a meta-argument. The meaning of the word "efficiency" is as debatable as
the value of Word.  What you consider efficient and I consider efficient are
two very different things. 

> 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.

Then how about you stop attacking me and using me as a straw man in your posts.


> My central assertion is any tool that makes the writer backtrack, rebuild,
> reinstall, or otherwise not write is, by definition, inefficient and causes
> delays. 

FrameMaker, PageMaker, RoboHelp, ForeHelp - all of these tools are guilty of
the same crimes. 

> Any tool that is robust, with reliable automation and features that
> allow the writer to save time is, by definition, efficient. 

No. Because AUTOMATION does not equal QUALITY. 

> 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. 

Poetry aside, no. EFFICIENCY does not equal QUALITY.  Besides, the quest for
efficiency is ultimately a hopeless quest. Like the battle against entropy.
There are ALWAYS flaws and mistakes. It is the nature of ALL human endeavor. 

> By the way, I define efficiency mathematically, as Output/Input * Time.
> Output is our work. Input is what goes into the work. 

Find me a writer (any human) who works with mathematical precision and I will
gleefully give you a billion dollars. 

> We expect our clients to take such a
> time view, as well, which is where you and I have a disagreement. 

Yes. My clients set the rules, I delivery quality. If they want me to use Word.
I salute and say, "anything you want sir, it's your money."  Apparently, your
firm assumes to know what is best for the client, which I think is bad
business.  

> 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. 

Accurate, quality documents can serve as a MUCH bigger incentive to do more
quality work in the future then ANY complex documentation system ever possibly
could.   

> 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.

So doing GOOD work isn't as important as doing it EFFICIENTLY.  That is absurd,
Tim. 

> 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? 

So does Frame's incessant crashing (20 or so times last week on a consultant's
system in San Mateo.)  Frame's bizarre keyboard shortcuts and menus that are
not customizable. Frame's 4 steps to resize an image vs. 1 mouse resize in
Word. 

> 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.

My clients by and large want good docs. They want docs that people can read,
are technically accurate, and don't cost them an arm and a leg.  I work with
CTOs and Directors of Engineer. They want quality docs with few hurdles between
them and the docs.  They don't care what tools I use as long as they can get to
the docs and read them an edit them easily. 

A huge proprietary documentation system with complex tools that require a lot
of training would be completely unacceptable to most engineers.  My company has
at least 2 or 3 clients right now who were taken by such snake oil salesmen -
buy our huge system and you'll doc better.  They didn't doc better. The writers
were still stupid. They just had bigger tools to accentuate their stupidity. 

Word is a perfectly acceptable tool in many situations.  It is ubiquitous, it
is flexible, and it integrates exceptionally well with Visio, Excel, Access,
Paint Shop Pro, and a host of other tools. FrameMaker is also a perfectly
acceptable tool. It has many powerful features and is great for indexing and
large book building. 

Andrew Plato

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.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.