RE: Why WYSIWYG for XML???

[<Daniel_Hall -at- trendmicro -dot- com>]

I'd posit that it's because as writers and readers we're trained to use visual cues to help differentiate between types of content.

For instance, my current docs (tend to) have a particular style that's used to introduce the step-by-step directions for each discreet task. For instance, 
<b>To gronk the widget:</b> 
1. Open the gronk controls.
2. Configure the gronk level
3. Click "Gronk"...

This bolding of the introductory phrase is used throughout all the docs here (leaving aside whether this is a good idea or not :-> ). When I'm looking at a document, I can easily tell if this is correctly "semantically marked" by taking a quick run-through and checking the formatting. If I'm using a tool where this type of marking is not easily visible, then you've slowed me down, because I've reached a point where I can look at a page and quickly tell if these sections are correctly marked - in fact, the incorrect ones tend to jump off the page at me. 

There's a reason that headings are formatted differently than body text, and it's not just because they add pretty white space to the pages. :o) Readers use the visual differences in formatting to determine which are the relevant parts when they are flipping through a doc looking for information. Writers do the same thing when writing or editing.

Asking me to parse the tags of an XML doc is like me to proof the text of an html doc by looking at the code - possible, but not convenient.

I'm not arguing for or against XML or any particular tools, or even trying to say that this reliance on visual cues is correct or not - just pointing out why (IMO) there's a desire to maintain differences in formatting for different "types" of content.

Dan

 

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-techwr-l-129804 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
[mailto:bounce-techwr-l-129804 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com]On Behalf Of Bill
Lawrence
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 7:16 AM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: Why WYSIWYG for XML???



Hi Folks,

I note (with no small amount of consternation) that many writers, when
considering going to XML, are looking for WYSIWYG authoring tools.  In
my experience, using WYSIWYG tools are a real barrier to getting writers
into the mindset of semantic markup versus visual layout.  

In training writers to use XML or SGML systems, especially those that
will be using single-source systems designed for multiple output media,
the big problem I've encountered is in getting folks to mark up content
for it's meaning and not worry about the format.  I've even had writers
insist that unless they can control and override style sheet formatting
they can't do an adequate job of creating documentation.  Never mind
that the some pieces of the single source docs might be used for online
help, some for PDF, and some for internal knowledge bases.  They want to
see what it will look like on paper as they are writing.

I've also noticed that writers that fixate on WYSIWYG never really make
the jump to semantic markup.  

Don't get me wrong, if I'm working on a marketing piece or anything that
has a complex layout and only one output medium, I'll grab Quark or
something similar for that.  But why is everyone so insistent on WYSIWYG
for technical documents? 

Bill Lawrence
Senior Technical Writer
Matrix Solutions



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

SEE THE ALL NEW ROBOHELP X5 IN ACTION: RoboHelp X5 is a giant leap forward
in Help authoring technology, featuring Word 2003 support, Content
Management, Multi-Author support, PDF and XML support and much more! http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrldemo

>From a single set of Word documents, create online Help and printed
documentation with ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 7 Professional, a new yearly
subscription service offering free updates and upgrades, support, and more.
http://www.doctohelp.com

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -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.