Re: XML-based Help Authoring tools for customized help

[Sean Wheller <seanwhe -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

Mark Baker wrote:
> On the contrary, our ability to learn language is at
its highest in our
> youth and declines rapidly as we age. This is a
consideration that has to
be
> taken seriously when designing a language based
solution to a problem.

Not so fast. I and others like me have  mastered a
number of markup
languages and even programming languages. We have done
so because we are
either passionate about what we do or have been driven
by a need. As
technical authors, I think we have very well developed
brains. We are also
extremely adapt at learning and understanding new
things.

Granted any language has to be designed, but then so
does any tool.
Usability increases accessability.

>
> > In
> > addition, because of
> > the DTD/XSD, markup cannot be misused.
>
> I wish this was so, but it isnt. Here's how the
though process goes: I
want
> this paragraph in italic. I don't have an
italic-paragraph tag, but I know
> that the caption tag produces italic text, so I'll
use that. If the
caption
> tag can only be used with a table, I'll create an
empty table. No one will
> see the difference on paper.

I think you're splitting hairs here. The only way a
misuse can take place is
if the intelligent part of the brain is switched off
while writing or if the
person has never taken the time to train themselves.

>
> This, and a thousand other cheats and mistakes
happen all the time. The
> DTD/XSD can't catch them. They can only catch
invalid structure, not
invalid
> intention. And the more lenient the structure, and
the more elements it
> contains, the easier it is to cheat or mistake its
intention. That is why
> small, tight, topical markup is preferable. It is
harder to cheat and
harder
> to make mistakes.

Yet, when people are faced with learning they do not
try to "role their
own". The move to a recognised standard. Simplied
Docbook is a good starting
point and just because a DTD has over 40 elements does
not mean yuoi nead to
use all of them. The KDE project has based itself on
Docbook, but then they
have also changed it. So "It ain't Docbook Anymore".
However, it is close
enough so that Docbook users can easily get to grips
with markup for KDE
projects. The LDP has an approach that is somewhere
between.

To me Docbook is a platform upon which I build by own
DTD/XSD/XSL
customization layer. This layer is the simple topic
language you are talking
about. Although in my case this layer is build on a
proven and matured
technology that is supported by a very large
community.

Everyday I meet or hear of new people who are starting
to use XML in
publishing. Very few of them have decided to "role
their own" from the
start. Many move to docbook because the language is
good for publishing
books on computer hardware and software related
topics. Another factor is
that docbook is an international standard and has a
very powerful and broad
number of ready XSL's.

> True. But it is still important to reduce training
costs and minimize mean
> time to productivity by creating tools that are as
easy as possible to
use.
> To simply say, "most will adapt and will eventually
learn" is fiscally
> irresponsible. We are supposed to be usability
champions. We shouldn't
take
> cavalier attitudes to usability like that.

You don't have a very high regard for your fellow
human beings do you?

> Yes. Big, loose tagging languages are hard to
process as well as being
hard
> to use. Small, tight, and topic wins on this front
as well.

Now how to you propose that a person, just starting
with XML will "Role
their own" and learn how to write XSL's to transform
to XSL-FO?

Get real, if it was they way you descibe then nobody
will be using Docbook
XML, yet it grows everyday. If people are as stupid as
you make out then
programmers from a VB background would never move to
C++. C++ programmers
would never move to C# or Java. More than once in
computer history we have
seen people making transitions.

> Frankly, Docbook has its place, just as Frame and
Word have their places.
> They are all packaged systems that expose their
inner working enough so
that
> expert users can make them do interesting things.
The expert users of each
> system tend to become fervent advocates of those
systems and suggest them
as
> ideal solutions to a wide range of problems.

I thought that the audience on this forum are expert
users in one tool aor
another. I know zero about frame, lots about word, but
stick to XML because
of the no lockin advantage.

> XML, on the other hand, is really about the ability
to roll your own
markup
> languages that are specific to your needs. If your
needs are just like
many
> other people's needs (and many people's are) then
one of the packaged
> systems will probably meet those needs. If not, then
a custom markup
> language is in order. And for the sake of both the
author and the person
who
> has to program the processing of that language, it
should be designed to
be
> small, tight, and topical.

It is inevitable that languages start small and grow
in size over time.

Just because you have the ability to "role your own"
does not mean that you
should. Can you imagine how many markup languages
there would be in
Publishing. It would make moving between jobs a
nightmare. By taking on a
standard, people have recognized skills and are
therefore better able to
apply those skills across a greater number of
projects. Word is almost a
defacto standard, the Word Lexicon is understood by
most every technical
writer. Communication is easier and induction into the
team and time to
productivity is reduced. The same goes for Docbook or
any other standards
based markup.

The fact that I can put XML, XSL, XHTML, HTML, CSS on
my resume means that I
have a common understanding with millions of people
around the globe.
Docbook, as with these W3 standards, is the same.

I do agree with you that there are problems. I just
believe that they are
NOT insurmountable.

Sean Wheller


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

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

ROBOHELP FOR FRAMEMAKER TRIAL NOW AVAILABLE!

RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.  
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for 
competitive pricing or download a trial at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l4

---
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.