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: Online help via local browser? From:Bob Morse <morse -at- GLOBALDIALOG -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 4 Apr 1996 16:38:01 GMT
Karla McMaster <mcmaster%pcmail -dot- cti-pet -dot- com -at- cti-pet -dot- com> wrote:
>As I have mentioned in this forum before, I am looking at the prospect of
>delivering online help/documentation ... in the UNIX environment.....
>[S]omeone mentioned the other day--why not do html, and send a licensed browser
>with the software, with which users would access the local help file.
>Has anyone ever done this, considered it, know of any pitfalls?
Yes, I did that last year for a client, who just listed a Web browser as one of
the "system requirements" (rather than shipping one w/product pkg). I thought
it worked out pretty well, and the hypertext capabilities really enhanced the
exposition (separation of general-level overviews from detailed how-to stuff
made it more readable, and the hypertext jumps and "Back" key let 'em browse
as many details as they wanted).
Within the app (in X-Windows), the client's programmers coded the Help key to
sequentially launch the browser (by variable--the app path and executable were
"configuration options") and load the help file. The "launch & load" took a few
seconds (minor irritation), but the convenience of having it on-line and the
value of the hypertext outweighed that. To minimize the load time, just try to
avoid graphics (slick logos & such); for necessary illustrations just use simple
line art saved as 2-bit b&w GIFs (smaller files, quicker loading).
We also used a standardized navigation aide that we duped to the top of each
section (if you can imagine the blue type and underscores):
The difference between " < < " and " < " is a matter of rank: the single arrow
jumps to the top of the previous or next section of the same rank (outline level),
while the two arrows jump to the previous or next higher-ranking section.
Overall, I enjoyed doing it, thought it worked well, and believe the client and
users were pleased with the results.