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.
It does sound like the best of your available
alternatives is FM --> RoboHelp --> print and online
help with manual synchronization of content updates,
yes.
FrameMaker + RoboHelp really is not the best way to
make online help, though; WWP does it much, much more
efficiently. (I half expect eHelp would agree, with
regards to content authored in FrameMake
itself--though they would probably politely suggest
just working in RoboHelp and taking FM out of the
equation.)
Since somebody with little clue gets to pick your
workflow, do you get to pick theirs? CAn you tell the
dot Net developers to work in Java or PowerBuilder
1.0, or your Java developers to use VB 6? LOL!
--- wpsynek -at- datadesignservices -dot- com wrote:
> I hadn't even
> thought of using WWP for
> creating Help files mainly because the head of the
> Software group said
> "use RoboHelp".
Too bad he doesn't know the profession any better, the
savings could be significant.
> We never tried using RoboHelp to create XML.
Of course not <g>. I was just suggesting that you not
compare creating XML from WWP from FrameMaker with
creating online help from RoboHelp. Instead, I suggest
you compare creating online help from WWP to creating
online help from WWP.
> > But, the problem is your folks cannot use
> FrameMaker,
> > right (why not? methinks they'd like it).
>
> I know they would, I've been using it since Frame 3
> and can't even imagine
> using anything else to produce large technical
> manuals for print or PDF
> distribution.
>
> > WWP 2003 will have you making help files from
> > well-made FrameMaker files within 30 minutes . . .
>
> > and then you'll want to customize some (for
> example,
> > the standard templates do not include your
> company's
> > logo).
>
> I'll give it a try, but again I'm running into the
> "thou shalt use
> RoboHelp" edict.
My FM --> online help and print projects were 40-60
hours shorter (when last I measured) using WWP
compared to the same projects using FM --> RoboHelp --
That 40-60 hours can be used to spend more time on
content, meet shortened project deadlines, or
whatever; generally, with more time to focus on
content, the quality of the deliverable goes up, but I
couldn't measure it as easily as hours.
> online help and print.
> Thanks for the follow-up. It's still looking like
> the best process is
> going to be Frame > Help using RoboHelp then tell
> the software developers
> to keep their mitts off the files and submit all
> changes to Tech Pubs.
