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.
Stephen--
Thanks for getting things back on track and for your feedback in
response to my RFI.
Gina
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen D. Martin [SMTP:smartin -at- STORM -dot- CA]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 1:50 PM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Re: Producing Books
>
> Walker, Arlen P wrote:
>
> > > Remember: it is a poor worker who blames the tools.
> > Even though (s)he may be entirely correct to do so?
>
> > It's not correct. It's true the choice of the tool can make the job
> > easier (or more difficult). But there always remain ways to do a
> > quality job with even the most mediocre (or worse) tools. The best
>
> Funnily enough I don't recall quality of the work ever having come
> into
> question.
>
> Gina asked whether PageMaker or FrameMaker might be a "must have".
> Christopher responded to the effect that Word was just spiffy keen,
> and
> all those people whining about it were just trying to blame Word for
> thier own shortcomings.
>
> Whether or not a quality job is possible with Word, or PageMaker, or
> FrameMaker is moot, we can take it for granted that with enough time
> and
> effort it is possible. The more important question is: If you can do
> the job in five hours using FrameMaker, or in five - ten hours using
> Word, which would you choose?
>
>
> Given my experience on the last four jobs I did (two major manuals,
> one
> chapter updating that turned into a creatign a whole new manual, and a
> minor manual editing job), I could have gotten the same work done with
> a
> lot less headaches and in a lot less time by using something other
> than
> Word (or less buggy versions).
>
> Personally, if you want to use Microsloth products, I'd stick with
> Office95 for now, and possibly jump straight to Office 98. There are
> a
> host of other packages out there and for anybody to reject perfectly
> valid complaints about any particular package is inexcusable.
>
> --
> Stephen D. Martin
> President, Stephen Martin Enterprises
>http://www.somemag.com
>
>
> ~~
> Send commands to listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g., SIGNOFF
> TECHWR-L)
> Search archives at:
>http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html,
