On 07/03/2013 09:27 PM, turquoiseb wrote: > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: >> --- In [email protected], "martyboi" <martyboi@> wrote: >>> The perfection of voice-to-text technologies, coupled >>> with the inevitable acceptance of simplified English >>> (like u, ur, etc.) and anticipatory word selection >>> (from a limited corporate-approved dictionary) may >>> eliminate even the two-finger technique and change >>> what acceptable written text looks and "sounds" like. >>> Further, topic based writing requirements using data >>> defining techniques (XML)to satisfy the need to write >>> once and display everywhere (phone, terminal, help >>> screens, web) will create completely uniform output >>> eliminating the "voice" of the writer. Eventually >>> meta-writing techniques, which enable systems to >>> become self documenting, will emerge. >>> >>> Here's what it may look like :-) >>> >>> Press zee red boottun tu stert zee system. Veeet fur >>> system ineetielizeshun und zeen oopee zee inpoot cufer. >>> >>> http://www.tuco.de/home/jschef.htm >> I agree with *some* of what you say, but doubt >> seriously that "tweetspeak" will become the norm. >> It is *already* one of potential "black marks" >> held against people in the corporate world, and >> the ability to write traditional English is still >> valued. Executives have actually seen their >> careers plateau and be barred from further pro- >> motions because of their inability to write >> clear English, relying instead on the gibberish >> churned out by engines such as this. So although >> what you suggest may happen in time, I don't >> expect that time to come anytime soon. >> >> As for speech-to-text systems becoming more prev- >> alent, that is a given. What they translate *into* >> is another question. >> >> XML is also a given, in business/software contexts. >> Almost everything we write at IBM is in XML. >> >> As for "corporate-approved dictionaries," I have >> to live every day with a piece of software called >> Acrolinx, which scans every XML document I write >> and *forces* it to comply with the IBM Style Guide. >> This is often a hilarious interaction, because >> after all it's a piece of software, and often >> either makes funny mistakes, or tries to force >> us to actually violate English grammar and >> spelling to comply with what it thinks are >> the "right" standards. >> >> I understand the need for it -- they're a global >> corporation employing literally thousands of tech >> writers, and they have to try to find a way to >> make their output sound as if it had all come >> from the same corporate "voice." But it does >> provide many moments of amusement as it tries >> -- and fails -- to cover all possible situations >> with a very limited vocabulary and rule set. >> >> The cost of translation is also a factor in this >> push towards standardized language. The less >> variation there is in the writing, the easier >> (and thus cheaper) the cost of translating that >> writing into 40 different languages. > BTW, martyboi, I wanted to comment on your pre- > diction of "meta-writing techniques, which enable > systems to become self documenting." To some extent, > that day is already here. > > Most API (application programming interface) doc > is already auto-written, using technologies like > Javadoc. That is, the developers introduce tags > into the source code they write for a class or > a method, we tech writers then go in and edit it > for English (since at IBM a lot of them do not > have English as a first language) and for com- > pliance with the Style Guide, and then when the > code is compiled, it churns out pre-written API > documentation in HTML, which we then just insert > into our Eclipse-based Infocenters as plug-ins. > No one has to maintain the doc separately from > the source code any more. > > There are even graphical programming tools that > have a certain element of self-documentation. > Although I don't think it's "built in" to either, > both jQuery and Dojo (tools that allow you to > "draw" your user interfaces graphically and that > then auto-write the source code that drives them) > have the ability to annotate each of the widgets > (like selection lists, sliders, accordion controls > and other user interface widgets). So when these > widgets are used, they "come with" built-in pop-up > hover text that tells the user how to use them. > This is possible because the function and "how to" > of these widgets never changes, only the content > to be selected or manipulated in each of them. > > All of this said, as a tech writer I find myself > constantly offering feedback to the interface > designers and programmers, because I used to > design UIs myself, and my philosophy as a pro- > grammer always was "A properly-designed interface > does not NEED documentation." Fortunately, I have > developed enough of a "rep" at IBM that the pro- > grammers often listen, and simplify, simplify, > simplify their interfaces based on my and other > tech writers' input. The result is evident in > the documentation we finally have to write. The > difference is apparent -- it can take two pages > of text to describe a badly-designed UI, but a > few sentences to design a well-designed UI > that performs the same function.
Javadocs are pretty cool since I use them all the time. A lot of development is adhoc which is a bit like creating a jet plane by hanging jet engines off an old biplane. Over a period of time things get gnarly. Or you have the "corporate race" which applies to Android where Google in trying to stay ahead of the pack is sloppy and under documents. A good example was the javadoc I found the other day that said the function has no use but it was part of a third party library but also part of Android. Duh, the function has a really good use if you understand what it does! Obviously the egghead at Google who wrote that comment doesn't. But Google is a repository of 20 something know-it-alls who don't know much and having the arrogant Mr. Kurzweil around isn't going to help. Just give it a little time and the young eggheads will blow the planet up.
