>From my perspective, wiki pages are great for documentation that is dynamic >and needs constant maintenance. It makes a lot of sense for a tool like ADDM >since the TKUs contain different updates for different applications and models >that need to be updated regularly. However, also on the ADDM example, the >installation guide should not be in a wiki format. The primary reason being >that I don't want a dynamic web of content - just a static set of steps to get >from point A to point B.
Another issue I see with using a wiki for documentation is that the approach appears to be a response to errors in the BMC documentation team's editing process. A wiki works well for documenting things external to the person doing the writing. It doesn't seem to be designed to be used from a source of authority. Imagine if there was a wiki application used by architects for designing buildings. If the architect is constantly tweaking the plans on their wiki, how will the builders ever complete construction? As the source of authority, it seems like BMC would be better off with installation, configuration, and user guides at a minimum in a static format for each version. Wikis could be used as a knowledge base or for purposes of documenting things outside of BMC's control. Just to note, we haven't gone to ARS or ITSM 8.0 yet so I haven't actually interacted with BMC's wiki documentation so my opinions are in general not based on Remedy specific experiences. Thanks, Shawn Pierson Remedy Developer | Energy Transfer From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Mueller, Doug Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 11:52 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: ARS Wiki ** David, Let's see... BMC discussed the idea of changing to wiki based documentation at WWRUG 2011 in the general session (I know because I discussed it). And, this has been talked about in User Groups and other gatherings in the year since then. BMC has some products that are using wiki based documentation - the ADDM product for example - and have been for several years and have gotten a lot of positive customer feedback on the concept. BMC did have discussions with various advisory boards and customers in general about the concept of moving to a new approach for documentation and received pretty much universal comments that a move to a more interactive approach that is available from anywhere, can be linked easily, can be commented on and updated quickly was a good approach to take. No, BMC did not talk with every customer individually about the change, but there was over a year of prior discussion that there was going to be a change and there was exploration of the topic with many customers well in advance of any move. Yes this is different (and I am someone who loves books and want the paper in my hands and refuses to use electronic books of any form). There is a different feel and there is a different interaction paradigm. There have been several comments from folks where there have been problems interacting with the docs. If you have comments/suggestions about specific data or specific pages, definitely use the comments section and as has been shared, the doc team is actively watching and responding to comments. If there are larger issues like general navigation concerns or problems getting to functions like printing, just include a note in your posting that you would be willing to talk with the doc team about your experience and I am sure that I can have someone in contact with you to listen to your feedback (just like there was a team at WWRUG 2012 to do just that) and see if there isn't something more generic that can be changed. Overall, the idea of online doc, more wiki style is a style of documentation that more and more customers are asking for and expecting. There was a similar reaction to the change from printed documents to on-line only documents that happened 5 to 7 years ago. If you are having challenges, please leave comments or volunteer to have a discussion with the doc team so they can provide the best doc experience possible. Doug Mueller From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG]<mailto:[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG]> On Behalf Of David M. Clark Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 9:38 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG> Subject: Re: ARS Wiki ** ARS 8 was released September 20, correct? So asking for opinions on the change a month later at RUG isn't what I'm suggesting. I'm asking if proper consultation with the developer community... the primary users of such documentation... was held prior to making the decision. Apparently not, given the current discussion. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG]<mailto:[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG]> On Behalf Of Shellman, David Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 11:30 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG> Subject: Re: ARS Wiki ** AT WWRUG12, BMC/Remedy was formally asking people's opinions of the new documentation. Any one could schedule time to sit with the developers and discuss. Dave ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG]<mailto:[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG]> On Behalf Of David M. Clark Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 12:27 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG> Subject: Re: ARS Wiki ** Just curious... anyone here remember being asked their opinion on this change in format prior to them doing it? That would seem like a good idea. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG]<mailto:[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG]> On Behalf Of Shellman, David Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 10:34 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG> Subject: Re: ARS Wiki ** As I said. I prefer the OLD PDF documentation. Dave ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG]<mailto:[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG]> On Behalf Of patrick zandi Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 11:32 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG> Subject: Re: ARS Wiki ** Dave: the new problem is the references in the PDF's point to links on the internet.. =8^ P On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Shellman, David <dave.shell...@te.com<mailto:dave.shell...@te.com>> wrote: ** I prefer the old PDF documentation. Note that on our servers, browser access to the Internet is blocked. So to access any external documentation is a multistep process. I can have the PDF's saved locally on our server that I can open. Or I can store them on my iPad to view. In each case I don't have to go searching for anything. It's in one place and clearly identified by name. Dave ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>] On Behalf Of Warren R. Baltimore II Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 10:52 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG> Subject: Re: ARS Wiki ** I get the sharing aspect of it, but the problem is that it is neither intuitive or fully baked (a BMC specialty if you ask me). It shouldn't take me an hour to find documentation and finally have to submit a helpdesk ticket to do so. And then, they send me the wrong thing because obviously, they are working with the same system (to their credit!) and can't find the right stuff either! I mentioned to a friend that when I go looking for docs anymore, I feel a little like Indiana Jones trying to find some weird artifact deep in the bowels of some dangerous tomb.... On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Drew Shuller <drew.shul...@gmail.com<mailto:drew.shul...@gmail.com>> wrote: ** Hi Warren. The Wiki takes some getting used to. I agree, it's painful, but it's very useful. I'll be reading something one day and then won't be able to find it a couple of days later. And, they seem to be adding things as we go along. I swear, there has been very useful information about 8.0 added in the last two weeks, after I started the ITSM install process. Some of the 8.0 information still refers to 7.6.4, and sometimes the information isn't where you would think it should be. I wish the website ran faster. I do miss the Master Index. But overall it's a good resource. You can add pages or entire sections to your favorites section on the Dashboard, which is a lifesaver for me. You can leave a comment on any particular page, which is a huge plus. You can see the change history of a page. You can generate a pdf or Office document of any page, or forward a page via email. So it's a living breathing set of documents that BMC seems to be updating regularly. Drew JTF-Bravo, Honduras _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ -- Warren R. Baltimore II Remedy Developer 410-533-5367<tel:410-533-5367> _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ -- Patrick Zandi _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ Private and confidential as detailed here: http://www.sug.com/disclaimers/default.htm#Mail . If you cannot access the link, please e-mail sender. _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
