Margin size and bindings? "Anyone can do it"?

["Hart, Geoff" <Geoff-H -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

Sara Clarke wonders: <<Am working on a contract producing standard operating
procedures which will ultimately be stored online and in 3 ring binders. Can
anyone tell me what the minimum left margin size/setting would be to
accommodate the binder?>>

You can answer this question yourself simply by taking a batch of sheets of
scrap paper, punching holes in them, and seeing how well they fit in the
binder. Rather than relying on our opinions, try it yourself and see what
works! That being said, use the following two "rules" for guidance: First,
make sure the holes are punched at least 1/4 inch away from the edge of the
page to ensure that the paper will hold up to repeated page turning; thicker
and better paper can sometimes use a smaller margin, but not often. Second,
make sure the holes are close enough to the edge of the paper that you can
turn the pages; if the edges of the pages overlap behind the rings, it
becomes difficult to turn the pages.

<<I am frustrated nearly out of my mind by the level of ignorance about
technical writing & writers. It often appears to be an apparent
unwillingness to even entertain the notion that I actually *know* anything
or can *do* anything... everyone in the organisation... seems to believe
that *they* are instant overnight technical writing experts.>>

It can be really disheartening to face that situation; editing the documents
(which you've been hired to do) and showing the before and after results
sometimes demonstrates your value, but this takes time and patience.
Sometimes it's not really worth the effort, and you're better to cut your
losses and look elsewhere for work, since a single person can only rarely
change a toxic corporate culture on their own.

<<I nearly hit the roof and had a coronary when my immediate supervisor
contacted me by telephone to tell me he & another wannabe tech writer had
just finished 'tweaking' my style guide.>>

Apart from specific details of the problem (see below), take this as a loud
warning call that you need to spend some time improving the channels of
communication. It's not unusual for supervisors to overrule us, for good
reasons or bad, but not even talking to you is a clear sign that you don't
have a good enough relationship with the supervisor to discuss such things.
If you can't get the message across that discussion and consensus are more
effective than arbitrary changes, this may not be a place you'll want to
continue working.

<<They had decided, without consulting me or even asking for my input, that
the page margins for the policies and procedures should now be: Top 1.75",
Bottom: 1.75", Left: 3.0", Right: 2.75" on an 8 1/2 by 11 inch page! Correct
me if I wrong (math isn't my strong suit) but doesn't that leave a single
(approximately) 2" inch column in the middle? They did this "to accommodate
the binder and so it would be nicely centered on the page">>

Yup, that's just under 3 inches of text. You noted (subsequently) that you
produced a page formatted to this spec, then reformatted it to accomplish
much the same result (room for the binder rings, nicely centered) and
submitted it. That's precisely the way to go. But you don't want to make
them feel stupid. The goal is to show how their proposal doesn't work, but
that you took their basic objectives and made them work. That shows (a)
you're happy to collaborate with them and recommend doing so in future, and
(b) you're even happier to help them implement their suggestions well.
Rather than emphasizing their stupidity, you're valuing their opinions and
demonstrating your expertise in finding solutions. Difficult to do well,
particularly if you're angry and tempted to flaunt your expertise and their
lack of same, but if you pull it off, you've made a start at improving
things. You might also point out the savings in paper by using wider text
columns; manager understand cost savings. <g>

<<I see this latest incident... as a direct sabotage and a direct reflection
of my lack of credibility within this org and with him.>>

While that may be true, operating on that assumption can't possibly lead to
anything but more antagonism. Redirecting a manager is like steering a horse
that's grabbed the bit in its teeth: you're not strong enough to overpower
the horse, but you can hang on, wait for it to tire, and gradually guide it
in the direction you want it to go.

<<The templates-from a layout and design point of view-were fairly flawed
and so development of [my] style guide solved a number of different issues
in one fell swoop-including the worst of the template design flaws. I was
reluctant to propose any other sorts of changes (including the margin
settings) because this individual would have been extremely resistant. (Read
hit the roof).>>

It occurs to me to wonder whether you inadvertently set a precedent by not
collaborating with the designer of the original poor templates when you
created your own style guide. If you didn't define a justifiable set of
problems and defensible set of solutions, then turn this into an opportunity
to work together on improvements, you may have inadvertently fallen into
step with what seems to be a corporate culture in which consultation and
consensus are discouraged. Just a thought, and if you're working primarily
as an editor, one you should ruminate on carefully. Editors can never afford
to be seen as imposing changes; we fit in best when we help others achieve
their goals rather than just forcing them to toe the line.

<<This person is a permanent employee while I am "just the contractor" and
is *not* open to hearing/learning *any* thing about documentation
development, doc design principles etc.>>

Sometimes the solution is to simply point out that you've been brought in by
Manager A to do this work, and the employee doesn't have a choice about
whether to go along with this. Sell yourself as the person who will help
them preserve their design goals under those constraints, even if they have
to sacrifice some of the details. As noted above, the approach is to take a
suggestion (wide margins) and come up with a design that meets their goals
elegantly. You'll have to compromise a bit too, but taking that first step
(improving the design) is more important than trying to win all your points
on the first go-round.

<<In the 'original' template there were*no* spaces after headings,2)
headings and titles were in all caps, bold & italic (yes...all three all at
the same time) and this person was proposing to use a larger font for body
text than for the headings. e.g. 12 point font for body text and ten point
font for headings. Okaaaay?! This same person also didn't want to use a 16
point 
font for titles "because it would make the document longer.">>

None of these are impossibly wrong, though there's no doubt you can come up
with better solutions. To follow up on the approach I recommended, consider
an example: body text larger than heading text. (I assume that this is an
actual difference, and not just something based on point size, since 12 pt
Times, for example, is about as large as 10-point Arial.) That being the
case, the designer's likely goal is to make the body text easily legible
because they've had problems in the past with trying to read microsopically
small text. If so, start with the fonts they've proposed, play with the
sizes, and come up with a design that works better than theirs, but is more
satisfactory to you. Propose that, and be prepared to revise the design
slightly. Negotiate, compromise, and attack the real problems in a way that
they can accept!

<<I also included an article on basic layout and design. I'm sure that will
win me *no* brownie points!>>

That definitely falls into the category of "rubbing their noses in the mess
to learn them a lesson"; reserve articles, books, and scientific papers for
situations when they ask you to prove your point. If you ever feel that
you're specifically trying to win a point at the expense of annoying your
supervisor, wait a day for your temper to fade and then decide whether you
really want to send that message. Lose enough points by this kind of
approach, and you eventually make it impossible to improve things; figure
out a less obnoxious way to make your point and perhaps they'll come to rely
on your wisdom.

--Geoff Hart, geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada
580 boul. St-Jean
Pointe-Claire, Que., H9R 3J9 Canada 
"User's advocate" online monthly at
www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/usersadvocate.html
"By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is
noblest; second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third, by experience,
which is the bitterest."--Confucius, philosopher and teacher (c. 551-478
BCE)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Free copy of ARTS PDF Tools when you register for the PDF
Conference by May 15. Leading-Edge Practices for Enterprise
& Government, June 3-5, Bethesda,MD. www.PDFConference.com

Check out RoboDemo for tutorials! It makes creating full-motion software
demonstrations and other onscreen support materials easy and intuitive.
Need RoboHelp? Save $100 on RoboHelp Office in May with our mail-in rebate.
Go to http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
---
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.