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.
Most of these things can be reduced to related groups of steps, perhaps to smaller procedures that can be given separately. Often, by thinking about the document in its structured form (rendering to XML or SGML), you can determine wha t the "elements" might be...and what constitute the ingredients for each element.
Another way to look at it is in the Information Mapping process...as "chunks"...but it is all, really, grouping the related steps into more easily managed pieces. Then, rather than listing the steps with all their gory details in such convoluted forms as "1.1.1"--each chunk gets a title and a brief introductory note explaining what the user will be doing--and, occasionally, whether this particular chunk is the applicable one for their problem (if the logic branches).
Next, number the steps *of that chunk* with simple instructions...and follow, if needed, with an explanation in more depth of what that chunk accomplishes.
Then, move on to the next chunk title and repeat the process until done. If you set off the chunks with appropriate formatting, the user gets visual clues as to the function of each part of this arrangement--and then can refer to any or all of it as needed for a particular task. For instance, one new user may read through the entire thing during the learning stage, then later refer back mostly to the steps alone as a refresher.
Procedural writing is one place where I think the IM approach makes sense--as far as I have been able to learn and master it. I have *not* taken their seminars nor have I any connection to Information Mapping Inc. yada yada yada.
David
-----Original Message from "Oja, W. Kelly" <w -dot- kelly -dot- oja -at- verizon -dot- com>-----
I have a question for the list. I am currently revising a procedure, and
have hit a roadblock on how to set the numbering. The users/readers, do
not like numbering that goes: 1.0, 1.1, 1.1.1, 2.0, 2.1, etc. I have
managed to avoid it up until today. The numbering/outlining schemes I
used previously will not work with the current procedure because this
one is soooo involved.
The way I see it, I use the numbering system listed above and that is
currently in place for my revision, or... something else.
Any ideas out there on a overcast and gloomy Monday?
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.
