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.
Subject:Re: in search for better tools From:quills -at- airmail -dot- net To:techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com Date:Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:18:25 -0600
Frame still appears to be the most cost-effective solution for a tool.
Some would argue Flare. I have issues with Flare which I won't air here.
Frame will do your structure, but doesn't require it. Stuctured
documents seem to be where you are headed and Frame is arguably the best
at conditional text. The other argument for Frame in your case is your
familiarity with it, and the legacy documents, which would be fairly
easy to convert as opposed to using a new tool.
Scott
On 12/8/09 4:24 AM, GILLIOTTE Valérie wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are currently using Frame 7.1 and WWP2003 + ePro for single-sourcing our documentation. When I mean single sourcing, I mean having the same source for Pdfs and on-line help, that's all. We are now up against a new problem : having to produce different outputs based on the same source but with slight differences in the names of concepts etc (for example, according to the framework customers are using, a cat could be called a dog .... (but the principle of use of the tool remains the same).
>
> Right now, we would have to duplicate large portions of texts, changing them slightly, which is insane. I know Frame 7 is not ideal for managing multiple conditions and and I don't find text insets common to all products that easy to manage.
>
> I wonder what the best tools are and the easiest to implement for this now ( unfortunately, we have fewer human resources and more texts to duplicate).
>
> I considered using Frame 9. I kwow it handles conditions much better than Frame 7. Then, the question would be structured or unstructured ? I guess structured would be a better way as it enforces structure but requires more time to implement .... as our documentation is not always topic-oriented (sometimes we have to show examples of processes).
>
> To sum it up, years ago we implemented medium-level single sourcing with Frame and Webworks for print and on-line help. Now we need a bit more but we still can't afford high-level single sourcing (XML-XSL, etc), at least I guess so (if some small structures have sucessfuly implemented an XML solution without too much cost, I would be glad to hear about it).
>
> I wonder what the best compromise is ... Is it still Frame? (Or are there other tools that could be worth investigating ?)
>
> Thanks in advance for any feedback. You can reply off-list as I am on a digest.
>
> Valerie
Are you looking for one documentation tool that does it all? Author,
build, test, and publish your Help files with just one easy-to-use tool.
Try the latest Doc-To-Help 2009 v3 risk-free for 30-days at: http://www.doctohelp.com/
Help & Manual 5: The all-in-one help authoring tool. True single- sourcing --
generate 8 different formats and as many different versions as you need
from just one project. Fast and intuitive. http://www.helpandmanual.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
