Re: Refining My "Cutting Edge" Technical Writing Skills Post

[eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com]

"Bonnie Granat" <bgranat -at- editors-writers -dot- info> wrote on 09/17/2003
11:13:14 AM:
> I'm surprised you saw it as a judgment when the word cues, such as
> "suggesting" and "might," were included to indicate otherwise.

So, you're judging where your 'acceptable average' lies.

> It seems utterly absurd to say that the time for writing
> would be reduced with
> increased complexity of the content.

That's assuming only that total time required is a constant. Which is an
assumption that makes little sense. You would not expect the documentation
for a toaster and electro-hydraulic systems to be produced in the same
overall time frame. John's example is a good one.

> No, not quite. <g> The more complex the subject, the more
> time should be spent
> to make sure the documentation makes sense.

But, if you need more time perhaps the situation is 4 weeks for a less
complex situation with 3 "researching" and 1 "writing". With a more
complex situation it may be 4 months but still with the 3 to 1 ratio. Or,
as John showed, a less complex item may take 50% learning and 50% writing
(1 day each).

If time is a fixed variable, then it's another matter all together. We're
back to my 'enough' scenario.

> Indeed. I am suggesting that 75/25 gives short shrift to
> the documentation.

With no backing in fact, no concrete examples, and no consideration of
influencing variables. Sort of like saying most murderer's eat apple pie,
therefore apple pie should be outlawed. Have to study the cause and effect
to see if the variable has a measurable difference. Then you have to do
considerable study to see what scenarios the resulting statistics apply to
and to what degree.

> My comments were in response to a generalization made by
> another poster, Eric,
> and I still maintain that 75/25 is a bad research/writing ratio.

I still maintain that in a vacuum such a statement is an absurdity. Even
if huge professionally compiled statistics were available and could give
an average, the average would still be an absurdity until you benchmarked
your particular situation with the "average".

A further variable in the equation is work habits/methods. Do you research
without producing notes? So how much of those notes count as writing in
the 75/25?

While I responded to your post, I don't limit the generalisation charge to
any poster in particular. I'd say the longest threads are nothing but
generalisations.

The 75/25 is an absurdity pulled out of thin air for a situation that may
or may not be fictional and may or may not apply to a fraction of list
membership. To then argue whether the initial absurdity is good bad for a
generalised case just results in wasted effort and electrons....

Eric L. Dunn
 Senior Technical Writer



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

NEED TO PUBLISH YOUR FRAMEMAKER CONTENT ONLINE?
?Mustang? (code name) is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to Web, intranets, and online Help.
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! See a live demo that
will take your breath away: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l3

---
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.