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.
Subject:Re: HTML documentation - Approach? From:"Higgins, Lisa" <LHiggins -at- CARRIERACCESS -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:33:56 -0600
Sybille Sterk wrote:
>I am going to have a job interview in the next few days. All I know about
>the job itself is that they want someone who can do "raw" HTML and that
>they need (probably) user and in-house documentation in HTML.
>
>The company I currently work for has decided not to attempt HTML help yet,
>so my experience is very limited in this regard, however I do know raw HTML
>and have converted a Winhelp 95 help file to a HTML help file.
There was a leap in there that one of us missed. Does the job you're
applying for require HTML or HTML Help?
>What would be the best approach for inter/intra net documentation? They run
>their servers on a SUN system, but all the in-house users (I believe) use
>Windows 95 or later. They use different web browsers - from Netscape to
>Explorer to the Linux versions of the two browsers.
The best approach to this sort of thing is to use "core" HTML. What core
HTML consists of is somewhat nebulous, but you'll want to use real HTML
(from W3's recommendations), and test it out in a variety of browsers.
Unfortunately, I think we're just getting to the point where HTML 3.0 is
pretty roundly supported. I haven't found a browser yet that fully supports
4.0 and CSS2.
I have about ten browsers right now, and before I start using a tag, I test
it in all of them to make sure it's going to work fairly consistently. The
results of my tests are pretty uneven.
>Which tools do you prefer? (Windows HTML compiler combined with some HTML
>authoring tool, raw HTML, HATs?)
Unless I'm mistaken--and I may well be--HTML Help is strictly a Windows
thing and those users on Linux won't be able to use it. Why not stick with
compliant HTML? When given a choice, and all other things being equal, I
generally choose a public standard over a proprietary format. With straight
HTML, I end up with portable, maintainable, open files. HTML Help is
compiled. That adds a level of complexity that seems unnecessary, and again,
unless I'm mistaken, it's a proprietary format and will exclude some users.
>Is HTML help the form of documentation you would use or is there a better
>way to provide the kind of information they want?
Personally, I'd use as open a standard as I could and still get the job
done. The fact that some of them are running Linux would indicate that
they're going to be interested in maintaining some portability.
