On 3/2/09 2:10 PM, "Rob van der Heij" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Jack Woehr <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Instead of looking to the past of IBM, why not look to how documentation is >> currently served up by IBM? The new Eclipse-based IBM style is exemplary >> in attractiveness and ease of use, and at your fingertips when you download >> Eclipse. I don't know what example you're looking at, but I don't find it nearly as useful as the PDF books. Mostly because the Eclipse-based stuff is: A) hard to navigate, particularly for visually impaired users B) almost impossible to use offline C) Doesn't present well in different formats (screen/print) D) Doesn't match up with the printed manuals familiar look and feel > I have some hope Docbook would fit the bill, but not been able to put > enough energy in to demonstrate that it does. Like Bookie it allows > you to separate content and layout and thus not challenge the writer > to fiddle with layout. Exactly. Docbook's major failing is the complexity of the input syntax and the absolutely miserable documentation for it. I spent two days last week walking someone 1) new to CMS 2) new to large scale doc projects, and 3) new to Bookie through basic document construction. They had a usable and nice looking document in less than an hour, and a really fancy one in a day. The same person had been trying to use Docbook for a week without producing a single document. I guess "Docbook for Dummies" would be a gazillion-seller. I know I'd probably buy a copy.
