I think you are right about all of this. It's marketing fertilizer. If you have documented (via emails, memos) the risks, then you are covered, even if the company is not. Aspirational material needs that disclaimer that stock prospectives have ( and I don't think your boss will want that legalese....<g>)
Grant ----- Nadine wrote: > That's what I was thinking. It sounds more like marketing copy than > user guide content. > > Nadine > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Jeff Coatsworth <[email protected]> > *To:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, December 5, 2011 5:21:46 PM > *Subject:* RE: documentation best practices > > It's called "marketing" ;>) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of > *hessiansx4 > *Sent:* Monday, December 05, 2011 5:56 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* documentation best practices > > I could use some insight into a situation I haven't encountered > before today: how does one best respond to a request (read: order) > to include something in their product's documentation about a > functionality that will not be released with the upcoming > release (it will still be in development) but is hoped to be ready > "shortly" (whatever that means) after the product is released. > > I've politely pointed out that industry best practice is to > document what IS as opposed to what WILL BE and that certain > liabilities might be incurred if promises are made and then > something goes wrong. > > Any thoughts? > _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to framers as [email protected]. Send list messages to [email protected]. To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email protected] or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to [email protected]. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
