Documenting for LCD or most common?

["hope.d.cascio" <hope -dot- d -dot- cascio -at- ARTHURANDERSEN -dot- COM>]

Keith Arnett suggested:
>      Despite the shared name (and some functionality), Win 3.1 and Win
> 95
>      are two different operating systems, and generally speaking, they
>      should be documented separately.

Whatever the difference (and thanks, Barry, for clearing that one up), it is
still possible to integrate the documention, if the program works similarly
enough on both platforms.  FWIW, I used a very good manual, QuarkXPress for
Dummies, that was written mainly with the Mac user in mind.  Quark is/was (this
was in 1996, and I was in Win 3.x) very similar in the Windows environment,
with a few exceptions.  The exceptions were documented in the appropriate
sections in sidebars headed with a Windows icon.  I didn't feel excluded and
got good info.  The other advantage was I sometimes used Quark in the Mac lab
on campus, so I felt comfortable going in that I'd know how to use Quark for
the Mac, because of the setup of this manual.  I'm guessing you expect your u
sers will eventually upgrade to Windows95, and an integrated manual may give
them this same level of security.

Hope Cascio, Knowledge Transfer Developer
Arthur Andersen Technology Solutions

------------Original Message---------------
Date:    Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:00:08 -0500
From:    Colleen Adams <PD33 -at- MEDISPAN -dot- COM>
Subject: Documenting for LCD or most common?

<snip intro>

Q: When documenting installation instructions, should we document for
both 3.1 and 95?  As a rule, should we document for lowest common
demoninator or most commonly used?  (I've already checked with
Customer Support to verify that we still have some 3.1 users--and we
do.)  If yes, then do we split out the 3.1 instructions from 95 or keep them
together?

Q: We also have various tutorial lessons which step you through some
applications of the software.  Again, Windows 3.1 or 95?

<snip close>