> To many writers, how their content is rendered is just as > important as the > writing itself.
If you are saying 'well' vs. 'poorly' then, sure. > Indeed for many writers, their work is the sum of its > parts - to include the formatting [font family, color ,size, > etc.] , and > spatial relationships [between words, sentences, paragraphs, > imagery, and so > forth]. Aren't writers concerned about writing? I thought the layout was a concern of the graphic designer, the imagery a concern of illustrator/photographer, etc... Regardless, the need for presentation consistency across a compiled set of information combined with a specific presentation platform far outweighs the 'need' of individual writers to indvidually control the kerning of their sub heads. There *is* a correlation between content and presentation, but that should be controlled in a group environment, allowing each person and each technology to focus on their strengths and to collaborate when necessary to reach an acceptable compromise. The writer saying "Damn it! I want 12 over 16pt Garamond set in a 15 pica column" has nothing to do with the web site user trying to access this information on their PDA. > should you > enforce business processes and mandate tools that could > stifle a writer's > creative process? Not at all. They should be working in a collaborative environment so that all parties are contributing to the best possible total package. But to give one person absolute power over decisions on issues that affect all parties just weakens the whole process. > Asking creative writers to use your newfangled tools and > processes to create > their work is a losing proposition, especially when they know > it benefits > your business more than it does their legacy. Huh? That sounds like an ego problem. > Ask a mystery > writer if she's > willing to change her ways in order to accommodate distribution across > multiple publishing channels. If it means more $$$ for her and more people accessing her writings, I'm sure she'd consider it. > Ask a journalist on deadline creating a > 16-inch feature column if he wouldn't mind writing his story > using an XML > word processor with no immediate feedback about story length > and headline > fit. Any decent word processor should be able to handle XML data and formatting. It's all about consistency, that's all. If you're writer can't be consistent, than that's a different issue. If you're making an argument about bad tools vs. good tools, than I'm in complete agreement. A CMS-friendly editing environment does not need to be a writer un-friendly tool. In fact, you'd typically want to leave the editing functions outside of the CMS anyways. > And what works > well for a > technical writing team may not work so well for an ad > agency's creative > team. Of course not. > Integrating seamlessly with the creative process is one of the most > important factors for the advancement of CMS's This isn't a CMS issue. This is a people issue. (This is an interesting topic, I look forward to seeing more discussion on it) -Darrel -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
