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.
In many cases, the same functions that support the product's intended use
can be strung together by a determined user to make software jump through
hoops your developers haven't even thought of, much less decided not to
support, and you cannot disable or delete those functions without crippling
the primary. This is especially true in the case of SW that is
user-customizable.
The point of not telling your users about these other potential hoops is not
to prevent your users from doing anything, but to protect yourself from
various
complaints, filings and lawsuits if they do. If you look at the warranty
statement
from just about anything you've ever bought, it is almost a sure bet that it
will
contain some language along the lines of "<company name> does not warrant
usage not in accordance with intended purpose of product." That *is* the
warning you referred to. The moment you tell your users that your product
can be used to do something, you create an implied warranty for that usage.
Say nothing, and your users are on their own if they attempt to do anything
that goes beyond what you specifically tell them is supported.
> Yes, this is the rationale. Still, Sandy Harris' point remains.
>
> One thing that I've learned from my years in the business is that a small
but
> very troublesome percentage of users will always explore the software (I
should
> know, because I belong to it). Some members of this group will always find
these
> undocumented features, so not mentioning them is a very poor strategy.
Since the
> capacity is there, I doubt that arguing that they aren't using the
software as
> intended would hold up legally. It seems just as likely that the company
would
> be found negligent for not documenting the features.
>
> It seems safer all around to either not include the features in the first
place,
> or to document them. If they aren't complete, then a warning can be
included.
ROBOHELP X5: Featuring Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author
support, PDF and XML support and much more!
TRY IT TODAY at http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrl
WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT: New! Document review system for Word and FrameMaker
authors. Automatic browser-based drafts with unlimited reviewers. Full
online discussions -- no Web server needed! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
---
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- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
