TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> >But I counter, how is it that my firm consistently wins technology-centric
> >awards for documentation if we are just producing spaghetti code? Go to
> >www.networkice.com. I *personally* wrote about 75% of the documentation for
> >them.
>
> I have taken that challenge, and have downloaded from that
> site the BlackICE Defender User Guide, a 950+ KB PDF file (72 pages).
Given the differences you and Andrew have had on the list, your comments
will likely be interesting. I'm not at all certain they'll demonstrate
anything other than that you don't like his style. Since we already
know that, is there actually any point to this exercise?
> I am currently evaluating it, and intend to produce an annotated version
> of that file containing my comments.
Care to post a URL for one of your docs? It might help the rest of us
evaluate your qualifications for criticising here.
(If anyone cares, my recent stuff is on www.freeswan.org; all the HTML
docs are mine.)
> My preliminary analysis has concluded that this document is mediocre
> at best, is full of classic examples of bad writing practice,
My first impression (after investing a whole two minutes) is that it is
well-written, but I can easily pick lots of nits. The persitent misuse
of "hacker" is downright insulting, there are some silly errors like the
forward slashes in the filname on page 39, some inconsistencies, ...
On the other hand, I don't recall ever seeing a document that couldn't
be criticised and improved, or an editor who wasn't critical.
> and certainly wouldn't win any legitimate awards for excellence.
That depends how "legitimate" is defined. The fact is it has won some
awards. My guess is that your definition would exclude those, but I'm
not prepared to accept that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.
