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.
>I spent the last two weeks of the development cycle rewriting the book to
our normal, sequential, traditional user manual layout. Same information.
Same level of detail. Much better reception.
A discussion on "sequential" versus "modular" would be in order here -- is
it a false dichotomy? Traditional so-called "sequential" docs are largely
modular -- witness the subsection headings and index entries to them.
So-called "modular" documents are largely sequential.
I advocate a combination of sequential and modular approaches. There are
degrees of modularity and various visual constructs or navigational
constructs that change a layout from being more linear to being more
sequential.
I would enjoy analyzing the same document presented in both the so-called
"sequential" and "modular" styles.
I think that the good principles captured in the "modular" model can be
perfectly well applied to the "sequential" model, and that the difference
between the two is grossly overstated, just like the difference between
print and online dynamics was grossly overstated particularly in the mid-90s
when hypertext reached maximum "gee whiz" penetration. Good writing and
layout, are simply a matter of good writing and layout -- not a matter of
whether something is online or in print, or sequential or modular.
I want to do a much deeper analysis of what print layout *is* and what
online layout *is*; what are its actual components? How does it really
work? And I'd like to take a critical look at what so-called "modular" and
"sequential" really mean. I'm skeptical about the reputed characterizations
of these different layouts. I think there is a deeper layer of eternal,
universal principles for info communication that transcend the online/print
and sequential/modular divisions.
I am a defender of constructs that originated in "linear" print -- I think
that modularity advocates misrepresent and sell short the potential of
constructs such as inline hierarchical headings that originated in print.
Linear print, done well, as in the best printed books in the bookstores, is
actually rich with "modular" constructs, without going to an extreme of
abandoning all linearity. Linear modularity, one could say, is better than
modularity alone -- I advocate moderate, linear hypertext and simple
transformation between online and print.
A landmark hotel, one of America's most beautiful cities, and
three and a half days of immersion in the state of the art:
IPCC 01, Oct. 24-27 in Santa Fe. http://ieeepcs.org/2001/
+++ Miramo -- Database/XML publishing automation. See us at +++
+++ Seybold SFO, Sept. 25-27, in the Adobe Partners Pavilion +++
+++ More info: http://www.axialinfo.comhttp://www.miramo.com +++
---
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.
