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.
Apology accepted. I think this is my first email on this subject that
doesn't start with "I repeat, Feedback doesn't do..."
I'm sorry I wasn't as clear as perhaps I should have been but this entire
discussion was started by me trying to be casually helpful to someone who
was looking for the some of the features in Feedback. I didn't post
comprehensively at that time because I assumed she could contact Sales for
more info.
There are Web 2.0 features in Feedback that you can allow, if you want, that
make it more than the basic server reports. You can allow people to rate
topics, make comments, and other stuff. But that stuff is all Opt in, I
believe, in that the user is aware they are doing it and have to click
something to that effect.
Re chm files reporting keywords back to your servers - I don't know how that
works. Again, it was the next product on my list to get into when I was sat
down.
Back to enjoying my coffee and the morning.
sharon
Sharon Burton
MadCap Software Product Consultant
Managing your content, one topic at a time
www.anthrobytes.com
951-369-8590
IM: sharonvburton -at- yahoo -dot- com
Twitter: sharonburton
-----Original Message-----
From: David Neeley [mailto:dbneeley -at- gmail -dot- com]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 9:56 PM
To: sharon -at- anthrobytes -dot- com
Cc: John Garison; TECHWR-L
Subject: An apology; was: Re: Surreptitious reporting...
I have realized, through the discussion, where the problem has been.
>From the early discussion, it was difficult to tell that you were
speaking of help documents *on the vendor's server" and not some
reporting element buried in a help file installed on the user's
computer...which is also a type of "server."
That is an entirely different situation, and I am sorry I did not
understand what you were saying.
In my defense, there are indeed applications that contain tiny
"servers" of their own--that is what they use to "phone home" with
information. It is what is used by some ostensibly legitimate
purposes, but it is also what is used by too much of the malware out
there.
A help file hosted by the vendor collecting such information you speak
of would be fine with me.
Whether I would buy a product that relies completely upon such a
Web-hosted help file or not is a different question. I do have a
preference for at least the basics located locally.
Again, I apologize for misunderstanding. Apparently, many others did
likewise. Had it been a little more clear to start with, the entire
imbroglio could likely have been avoided.
Why one would need a product from MadCap isn't clear to me, though,
since this kind of stat gathering is so common with many tools already
out there.
Free Software Documentation Project Web Cast: Covers developing Table of
Contents, Context IDs, and Index, as well as Doc-To-Help
2009 tips, tricks, and best practices. http://www.doctohelp.com/SuperPages/Webcasts/
Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control! http://www.helpandmanual.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
