Re: Hard Copy Manuals: Who does layout?

[Barb Philbrick <caslonsvcs -at- IBM -dot- NET>]

We're just switching from sending Word files to DTP folks working in
Interleaf to doing the whole thing in Framemaker.

The reasons we're going to Framemaker:
1. Autonumbering (including cross-referencing). Although Interleaf
offers autonumbering, the DTP folks didn't know how to use it.
Therefore, we couldn't use it. We generated all cross-references,
section numbering, and indexes manually. If Quark doesn't offer these
features, or if your DTP folks are like ours, you're inviting some
major headaches.

2. Control over the design. As several people have already mentioned,
most DTP people are more interested in the look than the usability. (I
know an editor who pointed out a mis-used semicolon to a document
designer. The designer said that it looked better than a colon, so she
was leaving it in, even though it was grammatically wrong.) As a
writer, you will probably have a better sense of where graphics and
such should be. For example, I worked with a designer once who shoved
all my graphics to the end of the document (a short one, but
still....). You have a better feel for where things need to be so
they'll be easy to find.

3. Last minute changes and communicating changes. I had to send a
document back three times because I needed the number 0 changed to the
word ZERO. They apparently thought I meant to use the number key
instead of an oh key. I finally had to write a note telling them to
use the word. This change would have taken less than a second to do
myself, but took two weeks to get done through the other department.

I also found that I didn't change things I knew would improve a
document if it was hard to describe the changes. If the people you're
working are good and available to you (ours were in another building),
this might not be a huge problem.

Good luck -

Barb


On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 17:55:00 -0500, you wrote:

>Hello Tech Whirlers,
>
>I need a bit of backup for a weird situation that evolved at work.
>
>Background (way more than you need):
>
>There are two tech writers in our mid-size company. For some reason
>all of our user manuals were written in MS Word. Both of us wanted to
>switch to a DTP program but there hadn't been much time in between
>project to research all the options properly.
>
>We researched and compared Framemaker, Word, Quark and Pagemaker. He
>had never used Frame, Pagemaker or Quark before. I have lots of
>experience in Quark and Pagemaker and want to migrate to Framemaker.
>
>I helped his research with my own experience plus the opinions of
>other experienced professionals (Um... that would be youse guys)
>
>He felt that using a combination of Word and Pagemaker would be the
>best for our situation and I agreed.
>
>My company is a member of the Adobe Developers Association and there
>is some kind of program where we can get Adobe products kinda cheap.
>
>Problem:
>
>My supervisor was talking to his supervisor about our desire to switch
>to a more useful tool for our hard copy documentation. The department
>supervisor's response was that we (the tech writers) should just write
>the text in Word and then hand the document over to our design
>department for layout and formatting in Quark. He also felt that the
>tech writers shouldn't be wasting their time learning DTP programs to
>perform a task (DTP) that tech writers shouldn't be doing.
>
>After I peeled my eyebrows off the ceiling, I calmly explained that
>this was not the alternative I would have suggested.
>
>1. I believe that the layout and presentation of the information I
>write is part of my responsibiliy as a technical communicator. I
>have _always_ designed the layout of my manuals.
>
>2. The compressed time frame we always work in, does not give the
>design department time to layout our document and then deal with last
>minute program changes.
>
>3. The design department is comprised of very talented artists and
>designers who communicate ideas _graphically_. These folks come up with
>wonderful UI graphics for our software, beautiful brochures, elegant web
>pages and make my manuals look even more professional with fabulous
>covers. That doesn't mean that they should have to format and layout text.
>
>4. The person doing the layout isn't familiar with the content and will
>not know if certain text should appear with a graphic or other text on the
>same page and won't know if text got lost in the import. So, the technical
>writer will have to proof the final document. And if there are any text
>changes, who is going to make them? The graphic artist or the writer? I
>should also mention that the designers all use Macs and we use PCs.
>
>5. I already know Pagemaker and my coworker has been able to pick it up
>rather quickly.
>
>6. I like to steal from other manuals I've written. Many times I will take
>a document in it's final layout, make a few changes and voila - instant
>user's guide. Every time we produce a user's guide, it will have to go
>through the same conversion process through the design department.
>
>However, our Design Department Director is only working 12-15 hours a day.
>I don't think she has enough to do. :)
>
>
>
>I plan to go through the list archives and search for all the arguments
>for/against DTP programs and Word.
>
>What I'd like to know, from those of you in mid to large size companies,
>who does the layout of your hard copy manuals? Do you have a dedicated
>desktop publisher? Do you, the writer, do it yourself?
>
>Sorry this took so long to get to the actual question, but if any of you
>have gone though a similar experience and have advice about any part of
>it, I'd love to hear it.
>
>I don't want to clutter up the list too much (gotta save space for the
>in-office signs :) so please email responses to kpadova -at- millstar -dot- com
>
>
>Thanks!!!
>
>Kathleen Padova
>Millstar Electronic Publishing Group
>kpadova -at- millstar -dot- com
>
>** My ranting and raving, not Millstar's*****
>
> TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
>to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
>   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
>  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
>browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
>

Barbara Philbrick, Caslon Services Inc.
******

 I dwell in Possibility --
 A fairer House than Prose --
 More numerous of Windows --
 Superior -- for Doors --

 Of Chambers as the Cedars --
 Impregnable of Eye --
 And for an Everlasting Roof 
 The Gambrels of the Sky --

 Of Visitors -- the fairest --
 For Occupation -- This --
 The spreading wide my narrow Hands 
 To gather Paradise --

   --Emily Dickinson

 TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html