Good Fast Cheap (was inherited ugly Word 7.0 documents)

[John Cornellier <john -dot- cornellier -at- CARDS -dot- DELARUE -dot- COM>]

Some of the tech issues have been covered in other posts.

I would like to ask a broader question: Should a document de-uglified at all?
And if so, by how much?

Sometimes, at least in the short term, ugly is only skin deep. It can be better
to release a document which is technically accurate, on time, and ugly, than one
which is beautifully formatted (and easier to use) but late. After all, the
document is not easier to use if it does not exist, right?

Changing the style of legacy documentation can have a surprisingly high internal
overhead for your company -- the documents become more expensive to produce. If
you edit a document for style, reducing its word count on every page by 30 per
cent while keeping the same technical content, this is a Good Thing for
usability. But it is a Very Bad Thing Indeed for technical reviewers, because
they feel obliged to review the entire document before signing it off. Same goes
for restructuring: Even if you do not change one word, restructuring can hugely
increase the reviewers' workload.

To quote the printshop calendar illustration: "Ya want it Cheap, Good, and Fast?
Pick two and call me back!!"

If a company cannot or will not budget the money to clean up some documentation,
and the reviewers - and maybe even the users - are used to some tacky format,
then you have to go with the flow. Or get a new job if the uglitude becomes
unbearable.

I know that in paradise all documentation will be sublime.

In the meantime, I would like to hear if anyone has any comments about how to
deal with the inevitable juggling between Cheap, Good, and Fast.

mailto:john -dot- cornellier -at- paris -dot- cards -dot- delarue -dot- com


	http://www.documentation.com/, or http://www.dejanews.com/