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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ruth Kiner-Cola [mailto:ruthk -at- envworld -dot- com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 1999 5:38 PM
To: 'geneking -at- nm-us -dot- campuscw -dot- net'
Cc: 'Pam Ripplinger'; Marv Wetovsky (E-mail); Jeff Sallade (E-mail)
Subject: RE: V1.1.1 documentation
Regarding the review process: YES--several times. Mark Hedland, George
Crowshaw, Jeff Saladae, Janice Faurie, Ken Baca, and Pam Ripplinger all
reviewed and provided comments, which we inserted.
Some of the questions and comments posed below are out of our league.
Perhaps you should mirror them to the development/QA staff for answers.
I'd like to include you in our feedback loop, your comments seemed to be
right on target.
What do we do with this documentation now? Did V1.1.1 go out? If not, will
it? If it does, will put the changes in you've listed below and send it
back to you.
Please confirm: I had heard from Jeff that V.1.1.1 will go out in the near
future, but with more "things" added. If this is correct, shouldn't we be
included in the loop so we can plan for it and get documentation ready when
the release is ready?
Ruth
-----Original Message-----
From: Eugene K. King [mailto:geneking -at- nm-us -dot- campuscw -dot- net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 1999 3:47 PM
To: 'Ruth Kiner-Cola (Env) - rkc'
Cc: 'Pam Ripplinger'
Subject: V1.1.1 documentation
Ruth:
I was trying to read the V1.1.1 release notes.
Was there any review process for the release notes?
It is not probably not necessary to correct these now but perhaps the
comments will be useful for future documentation.
A general comment on page 2. It talks about the accuracy of the data entry.
?Accuracy? is kind of a strong word. The data entry could be 100% accurate,
but totally useless. Reports like this is are designed to make sure that
there are not major problems in readings entered. If a reading is too high
or too low, it might be the actual reading and accurate but does not make
sense. These should be noted as exception reports to allow the users to see
problems that perhaps they should follow up on.
Page 3. Before billing, you do not adjust readings, you get a new reading
and post it to replace the one you did not like.
Does it summarize?
Multiple readings and duplicate readings are not the same thing. Actually
duplicate readings are probably ok but we have never ignored them before.
Multiple readings occur whenever a 2nd (or more) reading is received during
the billing period. Most times they are ignored by the staff but sometimes
they have pointed out when some source was entered twice and something else
not at all. Multiple readings occur if the first reading caused a warning
and a re-read was requested. Normally they are not a problem.
Page 5. Actually as you get closer to billing, you want to broaden your
criteria. You do not have time to fix anything but the most serious
problems. Your ?Usage Exception Report? should have stricter criteria than
the ?Check Readings Report.
Page 6. We should not have let a program get out that has your NO warning on
it.
3.c. What does that mean? What does it do?
Page 7. Should we reference where this screen is documented.
Page 13 - exception code 22. The value should be set for what is considered
an unusual usage if the previous usage was zero (Generally occurs on new
connects). It should probably be set to what you expect the average usage
would be for a new residential account. That means that most non-residential
accounts will tend to have that warning and can be ignored when reviewing
the report.
Does 23 also check previous year? 25 says it does.
What does 27 mean? Why check it?
41. Disconnected accounts must have readings. The rest will estimate
according to the estimation rules. As you get closer to billing, pay
attention to the rate or revenue class to determine how important it is to
get a reading. Be sure you have readings for all disconnects.
It would be nice if we had page numbers on the sample reports. Maybe that is
something PDF files do not like to do.
I guess with the next set of release notes, the names will be scrambled.
A note about the BLPST reports. I think their primary purpose is to validate
the flags set for counting on the Billing Recap report.
