On 14 November 2014 08:39, Martin Packer <[email protected]> wrote:
John, do you know if something akin to DCF is still used in the production > of it? Or, better still, Bookie. I think Jonathan Scott thought not. > > But if so the conversion to HTML and then on (via modern web techniques) > might make the process automatable. > Exactly between the lines of thought in my earlier comments. I fear they had an intern convert it to FrameMaker as a one-time effort and left it there... We see that happen everywhere. You start with a proven automated process that runs though some lube and TLC from an experienced person who is given no resources to look at keeping up with changes in the world. Concerned about continuity, they pull someone from school who is overwhelmed by the complexity, and blames it on the tools. Management authorizes a modernization based on a fraction of the requirements, replacing automated processes by easy to understand manual tasks that anyone could do. Those "anyone" never get hired, the experienced staff now has to deal with the extra manual tasks and run out of time. Management shoots those who are troubled by the missing pieces, and the organization concludes there is "no time to do all that extra work" and people give up. Think about replacing an INFOMAN-based Problem & Change Management by some cool Web-based problem tracking tool. Replacing batch performance reporting by Excel spreadsheets on a shared disk. Replacing generated mark-up language documents by MS Word or similar. Replacing PDF's by some Javascript interface where completeness relies on network bandwidth and browser issues. :sigh type=heavy.
