-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Dodd, Frank J
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 5:33 PM
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Outsourcing: Was Reasons to Structure
So what exactly is the pay range for a technical writer? I ting I kan
: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:48 AM
To: Sean Pollock; russ at weststreetconsulting.com; Randall C. Reed
Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Outsourcing: Was Reasons to Structure
Out here in Silicon Valley, they tried outsourcing. They found that
using Tech Writers whose first language wasn't
To be very simplistic, we already do structure, though we do it in a
sloppy, and rules bereft manner. Normally we use visual structuring
of documents. In other words, formatting. Applying very strict rules
to formatting brings us closer to structured data. Until one day we
transfer those rules
Jeremy H. Griffith wrote:
> Isn't that a tad harsh, Russ? My point, which you appear to have
> missed, is that (as Richard said) semantic markup is good, *and*
> that you can do it in unstructured Frame. Do you deny this fact?
Wholeheartedly. Semantic markup only exists if it is expressed in
=hotmail@lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces+spolloc1=hotmail.com at lists.frameusers.com] On
Behalf
Of russ at weststreetconsulting.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:19 PM
To: Randall C. Reed
Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Reasons to structure
If you work
16, 2007 8:48 AM
To: Sean Pollock; russ at weststreetconsulting.com; Randall C. Reed
Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Outsourcing: Was Reasons to Structure
Out here in Silicon Valley, they tried outsourcing. They found that
using Tech Writers whose first language wasn't English
To be very simplistic, we already do structure, though we do it in a
sloppy, and rules bereft manner. Normally we use visual structuring
of documents. In other words, formatting. Applying very strict rules
to formatting brings us closer to structured data. Until one day we
transfer those rules
If you work in the tech industry and don't have time to learn, your fate is
sealed.
I know what you are saying, but you are presuming that learning how to use a
technology is more important than learning whether or not that technology is
cost-effective to me in my current situation.
On top of
You may want to look over, and play with, the FM DITA plug in. It's a
structured tool, obviously, but seems to be a rationally usable tool
rather than an entire philosophy.
Art
On 2/15/07, Gordon McLean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you work in the tech industry and don't have time to learn,
One more reason, at least for my team, and I did not see this in the thread
(not directly said, anyway) is that we have a totally diff publishing model
here at FedEx. Our model is stood on its head, so to speak. By that, I mean
that our small group of writers function as a 'service bureau'. We are
All the reasons to use structured FrameMaker that people have submitted
focus on the net benefits, which is probably the main reason why you
would do this. However, here's a complementary take on it. As a lone
writer, I did all the work to write an EDD and convert my unstructured
doc to
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:09 AM
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: [BULK] RE: Reasons to structure
Importance: Low
Jeremy, I don't think that is harsh at all. What I think is harsh is the
constant discouragement from learning and professional development from
certain
Matt's question is, to some degree, academic and as a result list members
have made many valid points, some totally at odds with others. (Isn't that
the point of academia? :) In practice, the questions are: What will
structure do for *my* problems and what will it cost to implement?
I said the
tools like structured Frame. You just need to have
the desire and understanding of how important it is.
Original Message
Subject: RE: Reasons to structure
From: Randall C. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, February 15, 2007 9:11 am
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],framers
I'm on the FM-DITA mailing list Art, and was invovled about a year or two
ago when it was just starting out.
I still keep on top of things, but in my last place we switched to AuthorIT
as it meet our needs. My current position already has a structured
FrameMaker setup, so I've missed the chance
Jeremy H. Griffith wrote:
Isn't that a tad harsh, Russ? My point, which you appear to have
missed, is that (as Richard said) semantic markup is good, *and*
that you can do it in unstructured Frame. Do you deny this fact?
Wholeheartedly. Semantic markup only exists if it is expressed in a
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:19 PM
To: Randall C. Reed
Cc: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Reasons to structure
If you work for a company that doesn't accept qualified recommendations for
improvement from its staff, you should keep a resume up-to-date. No company
can
"Jeremy H. Griffith" <jer...@omsys.com>
Subject: Re: Reasons to Structure
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Message-ID: <2ib7t2p94cn4i7lv0j116s5svf7bhpld1u at 4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:56:49 -0700, russ at weststreetconsulti
"If you work in the tech industry and don't have time to learn, your fate is
sealed."
I know what you are saying, but you are presuming that learning how to use a
technology is more important than learning whether or not that technology is
cost-effective to me in my current situation.
On top of
You may want to look over, and play with, the FM DITA plug in. It's a
structured tool, obviously, but seems to be a rationally usable tool
rather than an entire philosophy.
Art
On 2/15/07, Gordon McLean wrote:
> "If you work in the tech industry and don't have time to learn, your fate is
>
One more reason, at least for my team, and I did not see this in the thread
(not directly said, anyway) is that we have a totally diff publishing model
here at FedEx. Our model is stood on its head, so to speak. By that, I mean
that our small group of writers function as a 'service bureau'. We are
All the reasons to use structured FrameMaker that people have submitted
focus on the net benefits, which is probably the main reason why you
would do this. However, here's a complementary take on it. As a lone
writer, I did all the work to write an EDD and convert my unstructured
doc to
ection.net at lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces+randall.reed=forceprotection.net at lists.frameuser
s.com] On Behalf Of russ at weststreetconsulting.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:09 AM
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: [BULK] RE: Reasons to structure
Importance: Low
Jeremy, I d
Matt's question is, to some degree, academic and as a result list members
have made many valid points, some totally at odds with others. (Isn't that
the point of academia? :) In practice, the questions are: What will
structure do for *my* problems and what will it cost to implement?
I said the
tools like structured Frame. You just need to have
the desire and understanding of how important it is.
Original Message
Subject: RE: Reasons to structure
From: "Randall C. Reed" <randall.r...@forceprotection.net>
Date: Thu, February 15, 2007 9:11 am
To: ,
I'm on the FM-DITA mailing list Art, and was invovled about a year or two
ago when it was just starting out.
I still keep on top of things, but in my last place we switched to AuthorIT
as it meet our needs. My current position already has a structured
FrameMaker setup, so I've missed the chance
[mailto:framers-bounces+spolloc1=hotmail.com at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf
Of russ at weststreetconsulting.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:19 PM
To: Randall C. Reed
Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: Reasons to structure
If you work for a company that doesn't accept qualified
Jeremy Griffith, write:
snip
You can do the same with paragraph formats, too. But you can
do all that in UNstructured docs just as easily as in structured.
Maybe *more* easily, when you factor in the time to set up your
structure, and to modify it when you make changes, which is major.
I've
Ok, I'll hoof in line and sinker. I recently wrote a series of articles on
structured FrameMaker, and here's what I put under 'Why should I use structured
documents?'. The ordering is not significant, and some points have already been
covered by others:
. A much greater level of automation
Matt,
I do both structured and unstructured. The need for that depends IMHO
on the contents and structure (or lack of) in the document(s).
However, where I have been using structure (and then I ususally set
all the formatting from within the EDD and avoid using paragraph
format tags), all
That makes sense. Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Ridder, Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Reasons to Structure
The point is that you tag a UI element as a UI element because it is a UI
element. You make it bold (or whatever) at a later point in the process based
on how
Matt,
Another major benefit of structured FrameMaker is context sensitive
formatting, which I believe was mentioned before by another forum
member. An added detail is that you can reuse generic element tags
which will look dramatically different in different contexts.
In unstructured FrameMaker,
Maxwell Hoffmann wrote:
Matt,
Another major benefit of structured FrameMaker is context sensitive
formatting, which I believe was mentioned before by another forum
member. An added detail is that you can reuse generic element tags
which will look dramatically different in different contexts.
No one has mentioned the potential for greatly
improving writer productivity, as well as eliminating
format overrides.
Once authors are up to speed on using the structure
view and the element catalog, they're freed from the
entire formatting burden (if the EDD specifies
context-based format
--- Charles Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Besides-with the caveat that I have not actually
experienced *enforced* structured authoring, per
sé-if you need to format a word or phrase for
emphasis or for special recognition (such as bolding
UI elements), don't you still have to tag that
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:56:49 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jeremy Griffith wrote [referring to semantic markup]:
You can do the same with paragraph formats, too. But you can
do all that in UNstructured docs just as easily as in structured.
Maybe *more* easily, when you factor in the time to
Jeremy Griffith, write:
You can do the same with paragraph formats, too. But you can
do all that in UNstructured docs just as easily as in structured.
Maybe *more* easily, when you factor in the time to set up your
structure, and to modify it when you make changes, which is major.
I've only
Ok, I'll hoof in line and sinker. I recently wrote a series of articles on
structured FrameMaker, and here's what I put under 'Why should I use structured
documents?'. The ordering is not significant, and some points have already been
covered by others:
. A much greater level of automation
Matt,
I do both structured and unstructured. The need for that depends IMHO
on the contents and "structure" (or lack of) in the document(s).
However, where I have been using structure (and then I ususally set
all the formatting from within the EDD and avoid using paragraph
format tags), all
>>MATT TODD wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>>So tell me...why structure documentation? I don't know enough
>>to answer that question, and neither do my bosses. What's so
>>great about it?
>>What capabilities does it offer that demand its use? Right now,
>>I'm just doing what I'm told, but it's always nice
That makes sense. Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Ridder, Fred [mailto:fred.rid...@intel.com]
Subject: RE: Reasons to Structure
The point is that you tag a UI element as a UI element because it is a UI
element. You make it bold (or whatever) at a later point in the process based
Matt,
Another major benefit of structured FrameMaker is "context sensitive
formatting," which I believe was mentioned before by another forum
member. An added detail is that you can reuse "generic" element tags
which will look dramatically different in different contexts.
In unstructured
Maxwell Hoffmann wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Another major benefit of structured FrameMaker is "context sensitive
> formatting," which I believe was mentioned before by another forum
> member. An added detail is that you can reuse "generic" element tags
> which will look dramatically different in different
No one has mentioned the potential for greatly
improving writer productivity, as well as eliminating
format overrides.
Once authors are up to speed on using the structure
view and the element catalog, they're freed from the
entire formatting burden (if the EDD specifies
context-based format
--- Charles Beck wrote:
> Besides-with the caveat that I have not actually
> experienced *enforced* structured authoring, per
> s?-if you need to format a word or phrase for
> emphasis or for special recognition (such as bolding
> UI elements), don't you still have to tag that
> content
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:56:49 -0700, russ at weststreetconsulting.com
wrote:
>Jeremy Griffith wrote [referring to semantic markup]:
>
>>You can do the same with paragraph formats, too. But you can
>>do all that in UNstructured docs just as easily as in structured.
>>Maybe *more* easily, when you
, February 12, 2007 10:10 AM
To: framers@FrameUsers.com
Cc: MATT TODD
Subject: Re: Reasons to Structure
At 06:45 -0800 12/2/07, Rene Stephenson wrote:
* Dynamic formatting: you can use structured FM to create formats that
behave differently depending on various surrounding factors, like indent
)
Intel
Parsippany, NJ
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Beck
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:16 PM
To: Steve Rickaby; framers@FrameUsers.com
Cc: MATT TODD
Subject: RE: Reasons to Structure
Sorry to be so delinquent in responding
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:27:15 -0500, Ridder, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is that you tag a UI element as a UI element because
it is a UI element. You make it bold (or whatever) at a later point
in the process based on how you choose to format the semantically
tagged elements for a
Cc: MATT TODD
Subject: RE: Reasons to Structure
Sorry to be so delinquent in responding to this; I have my excuses.
Some of us actually LIKE the left-brain right-brain gear shifting and are quite
efficient at it. Mind you, I am a great proponent of structured authoring in
theory and a miserable
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:27:15 -0500, "Ridder, Fred"
wrote:
>The point is that you tag a UI element as a UI element because
>it is a UI element. You make it bold (or whatever) at a later point
>in the process based on how you choose to format the semantically
>tagged elements for a given
All right...tell me good, solid reasons why a company would want to
structure their documents. With my limited knowledge, I know structure
effectively controls styles, fonts, etc...but I could manage that myself
without structure. By extension, I know style control also controls
content location
Matt,
I'll start the ball rolling, but I'm sure you'll get tons of responses from
folks more savvy about structure than myself. ;-)
* Dynamic formatting: you can use structured FM to create formats that behave
differently depending on various surrounding factors, like indent to a
I think it depends on what you're doing and with how many people.
If you're all by yourself, and you only need PDF and one type of help
output...I don't really think there is a reason to go to structured authoring.
It's perfectly possible for you to handle all of it yourself. (I've been doing
--
Max Dunn
Silicon Publishing
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
om] On Behalf Of Rene Stephenson
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:46 AM
To: MATT TODD; framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Reasons to Structure
Matt,
I'll start the ball rolling
At 06:45 -0800 12/2/07, Rene Stephenson wrote:
* Dynamic formatting: you can use structured FM to create formats that
behave differently depending on various surrounding factors, like indent to a
certain level if it follows X paragraph but to a different level if it
follows Y paragraph.
All right...tell me good, solid reasons why a company would want to
structure their documents. With my limited knowledge, I know structure
effectively controls styles, fonts, etc...but I could manage that myself
without structure. By extension, I know style control also controls
content location
Matt,
I'll start the ball rolling, but I'm sure you'll get tons of responses from
folks more savvy about structure than myself. ;-)
* Dynamic formatting: you can use structured FM to create formats that behave
differently depending on various surrounding factors, like indent to a certain
I think it depends on what you're doing and with how many people.
If you're all by yourself, and you only need PDF and one type of help
output...I don't really think there is a reason to go to structured authoring.
It's perfectly possible for you to handle all of it yourself. (I've been doing
; framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Reasons to Structure
Matt,
I'll start the ball rolling, but I'm sure you'll get tons of responses
from folks more savvy about structure than myself. ;-)
* Dynamic formatting: you can use structured FM to create formats that
behave differently
At 06:45 -0800 12/2/07, Rene Stephenson wrote:
> * Dynamic formatting: you can use structured FM to create formats that
> behave differently depending on various surrounding factors, like indent to a
> certain level if it follows X paragraph but to a different level if it
> follows Y
61 matches
Mail list logo
