I previously worked at a company where the tech writer, in collaboration with development, was responsible for designing and writing the RS and the FS. The docs were highly detailed (about 3000 printed pages per year for a single writer), and were used to not only output and update specifications, but also online help and QA test cases--from a single source. It was initially difficult to maintain and design, but the beauty of it was that any change went through the tw, since all levels in the process were absolutely dependent on it. The writer never missed a trick.
Following a single rigid methodology is like being stuck in a box. There is no single process that anyone should absolutely follow--we should constantly strive for new ideas if the results support them. S. Pollock Siemens PLM Software > From: tekwrytr at hotmail.com> To: lhs_emf at pacbell.net; framers at > lists.frameusers.com> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:29:15 -0400> CC: > Subject: > RE: radical revamping of techpubs> > > That is a very big if. A full partner > participant-stakeholder, or more likely the department manager? It is more > likely that the software developers, business analysts, and the project > manager are collaborating to get a decent set of requirements down. At that > stage, TWs have no place, whether department managers, full partner > participant-stakeholders, or something else.> > When the requirements are > determined, and possibly after several iterations, possibly after a prototype > is up and running, TWs might be brought in. Even at that stage, it is early, > because the GUI crew may not have the interface coded, the developers might > not have the functionality carved in stone, and everything is still uncertain > (in regards to exactly what the final product will be and do).> > TWs > complete a very necessary task; creating user assistance. Until the final > iteration, until all the requirements have been met, until there is little or > no possibility of changes to the end product, there is little point in > generating documentation that might become obsolete at the next iteration.> > > http://www.tekwrytrs.com/Specializing in the Design, Development, and > Production of:Technical Documentation - Online Content - Enterprise Websites> > > > Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:26:46 -0700From: lhs_emf at pacbell.netSubject: > Re: radical revamping of techpubsTo: tekwrytr at hotmail.comCC: framers at > lists.frameusers.com> > > > > Actually, I disagee, if the TW is a full > partner participant - stakeholder, or more likely the department manager in > the scenario you are discussing, they should also participate early on to get > the sense of the uncertainty and what those issues are, at the very least > these issues are going to affect their scheduling and the expectations they > have to deal with.> ----- Original Message ----From: Technical Writer > <tekwrytr at hotmail.com>To: Leslie Schwartz <lhs_emf at pacbell.net>; > framers at lists.frameusers.comSent: Monday, October 29, 2007 8:44:16 > AMSubject: RE: radical revamping of techpubs> > I agree wholeheartedly. That > is not the issue. The issue goes back to the BA interpretation of (and > translation of) the software requirements. If there is a high level of > certainty on the client side about what the finished product should be, TWs > should start early. If not, and it is essentially a fishing expedition with > ambiguous outcome, TWs are only useful at the last. Unfortunately, the > "agile" methodologies strongly sell the sense of control to executives, > pushing the idea that they can develop on the fly, adding and removing > "requirements" as the executives see fit. > http://www.tekwrytrs.com/Specializing in the Design, Development, and > Production of:Technical Documentation - Online Content - Enterprise Websites> > From: lhs_emf at pacbell.net> To: tekwrytr at hotmail.com; bhechter at > objectives.ca; framers at lists.frameusers.com> Subject: RE: radical > revamping of techpubs> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:04:10 -0500> > I belong to > several message - interest groups and I am used to hearing people give their > opinions in a bombastic manner. So its no> big deal to see that happening > here. But if this discussion is to have any real value it will be to share > our perspectives with> others and learn something about points of view's > entirely different than our own, which requires some tolerance and mutual > respect.> > > My view and experience is that it definitely helps to get the > TW involved early on, but it?s a waste of time for them to sit all the> way > through each meeting, and for the entire duration of each meeting.> > > Marketing requirements documents and engineering specification documents, if > they are adequately written will help the TW formulate> the user > documentation at a fairly early stage, but the bulk of the documentation > effort comes towards the end of the development> cycle. And ideally the > writer of the user guide if that is they type of documentation we are > discussing now, should be a> knowledgeable user with some fresh insights into > the learning curve the novice user will face, and some empathy for that new > user.> > Ignoring the need for documentation, putting it off until the last > moment is a formula for poor quality documentation.> > - In my humble > opinion.> > Have a great work week!> > Leslie> > > -----Original > Message-----> From: framers-bounces+lhs_emf=pacbell.net at > lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces+lhs_emf=pacbell.net at > lists.frameusers.com] On> Behalf Of Technical Writer> Sent: Sunday, October > 28, 2007 5:47 PM> To: bhechter at objectives.ca; framers at > lists.frameusers.com> Subject: RE: radical revamping of techpubs> > > Well, a > difference of opinion is what makes a horse race. Iterative software methods > do not require iterative documentation methods;> in most cases, documentation > before the last iteration is considered both wasteful and useless. While I > have a great deal of respect> for Steve McConnell, proposing early draft user > guides as a replacement for requirement specs is a bit off the road. > > If > you develop software, and intend to use early draft user guides instead of > requirements, you are going to be greeting the folks> at Wal-Mart rather than > trying to pull back a contract or two from Bangalore. The statement is at > odds with most developers' (and> most business analysts') understanding of > "requirements." Putting an occasional "agile" into a sentence doesn't make > the process any> more reasonable. > > I didn't invent the idea of ignoring > documentation until the final product is ready (or almost ready) to ship. Far > more intelligent,> competent, and capable people than me have decided that > "involving TWs from the early stages of development" is only useful when the> > end product is carved in stone before the first line of code is written. > That, for better of worse, is rarely the case.> > Lastly, given that about a > third of all software projects, agile or otherwise, fail so badly they are > abandoned, if you ignore> documentation completely, you have a one in three > chance of coming out ahead when the project flops because you have at least > saved> the cost of documentation.> http://www.tekwrytrs.com/Specializing in > the Design, Development, and Production of:Technical Documentation - Online > Content -> Enterprise Websites> > > Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:21:17 > -0700From: bhechter at yahoo.comSubject: re: radical revamping of techpubsTo: > tekwrytr at hotmail.comCC:> framers at lists.frameusers.comSorry, but I find > the thread both:a) Off-topicb) Misleading. Iterative sofware methods require > iterative> documentation methods, but by no means do they eliminate the > parallel need for early draft user manuals. In fact, Steve McConnell> (Code > Complete) proposes early draft user guides as an agile replacement for > requirements specs.Ben> Because the application itself> is built in an > iterative process, rather than > being carved in stone, reacting to feedback > from the client, documentation > before> the last minute is pointless. The > reason should be obvious; the > application being documented in the early > stages bears little> resemblance > to the application delivered. Ben Hechter > Vancouver BC bhechter at yahoo.com> > _________________________________________________________________> Windows > Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ? together at last. Get it now.> > http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033_______________________________________________> > > > You are currently subscribed to Framers as lhs_emf at pacbell.net.> > > Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.> > To unsubscribe send > a blank email to > framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com> or visit > http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/lhs_emf%40pacbell.net> > > Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit> > http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.> Boo! Scare away > worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! Try now! > > _________________________________________________________________> Boo! Scare > away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare!> > http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews_______________________________________________> > > > You are currently subscribed to Framers as spolloc1 at hotmail.com.> > > Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.> > To unsubscribe send > a blank email to > framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com> or visit > http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/spolloc1%40hotmail.com> > > Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit> > http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. _________________________________________________________________ Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
