RE: dispensing with documentation reviews

["Mike Hiatt" <mhiatt -at- vocaldata -dot- com>]

Here's anecdotal evidence of why this might not be so good unless you clearly label the documentation at "early release" or "Beta" or whatever.

We sent out Beta documentation to a customer who translates for themselves and their market. I just received the fourth set of questions from them. All of the questions are of the variety - "The interfaces shows field AAA BBB CCC, but the supporting table shows field AAA DDD. Should this be AAA BBB CCC?" Some of them are about fields that were added or deleted after the Beta doc was completed.

It's great feedback, especially since we're pressed for time. But it is rather embarrassing to have to confirm that we either didn't get it correct or it changed, unknown to us.

As long as the customer understands this isn't "released" or final documentation (whatever that means in your organization) then you're probably okay. But if the point is to skip reviews and release early documentation as if it's finished, it could make the organization look bad.

Mike Hiatt
Manager, Tech Pubs
VocalData, Inc.
Dallas, TX (yep, that one)
mailto:mhiatt -at- vocaldata -dot- com
www.vocaldata.com

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-techwr-l-86349 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
[mailto:bounce-techwr-l-86349 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com]On Behalf Of Ann Pai
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 11:37 PM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: dispensing with documentation reviews



I'd like your take on this from both ethical and practical perspectives.
I've been given a friendly heads-up from management that we may need to send
out a large documentation set for a relatively new, as-yet-undocumented
product without review.  Also, if the documentation isn't finished for the
customers who want early product releases, I may be asked to "wrap up
whatever I have" and send out the documentation as is. This includes a help
system, user's guide, and setup guide. Because our other writer is facing a
similar situation, it appears to be a trend:  it's okay to send out
unreviewed or even incomplete documents as long as we label them "early
release."

Because our developers often do all the testing of "early release" software
outside the formal QA cycle, it's possible that management sees no practical
difference in the writers doing their own cleanup and proofing of an "early
release" document. I haven't been able to persuasively articulate a
difference so far. (Our "early release" customers usually expect some
software features to be incomplete because they're getting the product
early.)

What are my options for appropriate responses? Am I wrong, or unrealistic,
to take a hard line on this? I've expressed my discomfort with unreviewed
documents going out the door. I also plan to review our standard licensing
agreement ASAP to make sure we disclaim the documentation as an express
warranty.

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

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.