Reviewing online help

[geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA]

 Richard Pineger asked for <<advice on getting a large help
 file reviewed?>>, and noted <<Once I print out the help
 pages there are no references to where they originated and
 no page numbers or links. This makes it difficult to review
 hard copy.>>

 I'm not sure what the problem is here. If you've chunked
 your text properly, each topic should have a heading and as
 many subheads as are necessary to sub-chunk the information
 effectively. If that's the case, page numbers should be
 irrelevant. Similarly, all links should be obvious from the
 formatting you chose (usually a double-underline), and if
 they're not, you can change the formatting temporarily to
 make the existence of a link obvious. On the assumption
 that this is how you've structured your help file, the
 solution for helping reviewers follow the links is twofold:

 1. Place the printed copy in a binder, and use section
 dividers to break it up into the main logical units. This
 will make flipping pages easier. However:
 2. Since the links are more effectively tested online,
 break your testing into two phases: check the material for
 substantive problems and proofread it on paper, but check
 the accuracy and quality of the links online.

 Similarly, break up large printouts into smaller units so
 reviewers can focus on only the parts that relate to their
 area of expertise; if their expertise covers the whole
 project, they'll still find small chunks easier to digest
 than the entire file. If I'm understanding things
 correctly, this should resolve most of your problems; if
 not, send more details and I'll have another go at it.

 --Geoff Hart     @8^{)}     geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
 Disclaimer: Speaking for myself, not FERIC.


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