RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
Further to Matt's comments, I do conversion for clients, but usually 1000's of pages at a time, and sometimes it's Word, Frame, or sloppy Frame source content. In almost all cases we look for patterns. If they can be id'd then we are sitting pretty. Regardless of how good or bad the content is, if we can infer a structure (for example, even though Ctrl+b is used, if the content is in a step then it will be a uicontrol and if in a figure title it is a wintitle) then there is a lot of good to come of it. That's the discussion with clients part. I can set up a demo of the entire conversion of legacy content in under a few hours. Then I show the results to a client. It has to be fast as I do this type of demo for free. This means it's my time if there is too much manual process. So, yes, I can say it's a simple, painless, and quick process to transition BUT that assumes I'm starting with good content. It's also simple, painless, and quick to book a flight from my hometown to Dallas (which is where I'm headed as I type this response) because the infrastructure is in place. If however there wasn't a collection of airlines with flights to and from the cities, tools like Travelocity, AirCanada.com, United.com, and others then I have to pick up the phone. Call my travel agent. Leave a voice mail, Wait for a call back, compare pricing and departure times, dates and durations, and so many other options. That's work. Same with conversion. Once a system is in place and it works well then more and more people can take advantage of the benefits of structure. And, if it doesn't work, or doesn't add value, then I say don't do it. Sometimes a third-party demo of what CAN be done makes it pretty clear that it should be done. Other times it shows you that it's a bad idea. Ultimately it really is a choice to make between net costs and headaches versus net benefits. And, as Matt mentioned, I'm also in Dallas, and also at the STC booth. Feel free to drop in if you are on the list and we Matt, Tom, or I can help out, discuss ideas, and generally outline ideas that may be of use to anyone on the list looking to migrate to structure. BTW, with a system in place we converted 5,000 pages of legacy content that was in good shape to DITA in under a day. That included splitting the files up into topics, converting task/concept/reference correctly, resolving all cross references between topics, validating files, building XML, checking it into a CMS, and publishing to both PDF and HTML. Of course, another client with 500 pages of crap content took over a week to achieve half of those results. Start with quality, life/job is easier. Bernard Bernard Aschwanden Publishing Smarter www.publishingsmarter.com Write Less. Write Better. -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Matt Sullivan Sent: April-29-10 16:24 To: 'Joseph Lorenzini'; 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) from earlier post While there's structured framemaker, dita, and a host of third party plugins can anyone really say its a simple, painless, and quick process to transition from unstructured framemaker to either structured or dita? Sincerely, Joseph Lorenzini ___ /from earlier post Hi Joseph, I generally teach my students in a hands-on environment to convert legacy documents to XML in under 2 hours, so I do see the process as painless and quick. I'll be in Dallas at the Adobe booth next week for the STC Summit if you'd like a quick runthrough. Tom Aldous will also be there, and he's actually scheduled to a 15 minute runthrough of document conversion at the Adobe booth this coming Monday from 1:15-1:30 I have our complete booth schedule, including booth demos and Adobe presentations schedule available in PDF by request or at http://blogs.roundpeg.com/2010/04/adobe-stc-summit/ Of course the success of the conversion depends upon the extent to which the content adheres to a standard. For example, if your Word docs all use Normal+ for formatting, or if your FM docs are riddled with *Body, then no logic can be applied and thus, no easy conversion exists. So if your authors worked with style sheets, the supplied conversion tools (FM conversion tables) are well-worth the effort and can convert any number of documents to fairly valid XML with little relative effort. If they didn't, I know of no tool, for FM or any other editor, that will analyze and structure documents using ad hoc formatting. You are currently subscribed to framers as m...@grafixtraining.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/matt%40grafixtraining.co m Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit
RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
BTW, with a system in place we converted 5,000 pages of legacy content that was in good shape to DITA in under a day. Just one question, who is we, meaning how many and what experience did all the we have with XML, DITA and Frame? As a lone writer with no XML, DITA or structured Frame experience, this is an extremely relevant question. And my own BTW is, I'm presuming that *my* content is good shape ;-))). At the very least, I know it backwards and forwards. Alison Alison Craig, Technical Writer Ultrasonix Medical Corporation Tel: (604) 279-8550, ext 127 E-mail: alison.cr...@ultrasonix.com -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Bernard Aschwanden (Publishing Smarter) Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:41 AM To: 'Matt Sullivan'; 'Joseph Lorenzini'; 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) Further to Matt's comments, I do conversion for clients, but usually 1000's of pages at a time, and sometimes it's Word, Frame, or sloppy Frame source content. In almost all cases we look for patterns. If they can be id'd then we are sitting pretty. Regardless of how good or bad the content is, if we can infer a structure (for example, even though Ctrl+b is used, if the content is in a step then it will be a uicontrol and if in a figure title it is a wintitle) then there is a lot of good to come of it. That's the discussion with clients part. I can set up a demo of the entire conversion of legacy content in under a few hours. Then I show the results to a client. It has to be fast as I do this type of demo for free. This means it's my time if there is too much manual process. So, yes, I can say it's a simple, painless, and quick process to transition BUT that assumes I'm starting with good content. It's also simple, painless, and quick to book a flight from my hometown to Dallas (which is where I'm headed as I type this response) because the infrastructure is in place. If however there wasn't a collection of airlines with flights to and from the cities, tools like Travelocity, AirCanada.com, United.com, and others then I have to pick up the phone. Call my travel agent. Leave a voice mail, Wait for a call back, compare pricing and departure times, dates and durations, and so many other options. That's work. Same with conversion. Once a system is in place and it works well then more and more people can take advantage of the benefits of structure. And, if it doesn't work, or doesn't add value, then I say don't do it. Sometimes a third-party demo of what CAN be done makes it pretty clear that it should be done. Other times it shows you that it's a bad idea. Ultimately it really is a choice to make between net costs and headaches versus net benefits. And, as Matt mentioned, I'm also in Dallas, and also at the STC booth. Feel free to drop in if you are on the list and we Matt, Tom, or I can help out, discuss ideas, and generally outline ideas that may be of use to anyone on the list looking to migrate to structure. BTW, with a system in place we converted 5,000 pages of legacy content that was in good shape to DITA in under a day. That included splitting the files up into topics, converting task/concept/reference correctly, resolving all cross references between topics, validating files, building XML, checking it into a CMS, and publishing to both PDF and HTML. Of course, another client with 500 pages of crap content took over a week to achieve half of those results. Start with quality, life/job is easier. Bernard Bernard Aschwanden Publishing Smarter www.publishingsmarter.com Write Less. Write Better. -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Matt Sullivan Sent: April-29-10 16:24 To: 'Joseph Lorenzini'; 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) from earlier post While there's structured framemaker, dita, and a host of third party plugins can anyone really say its a simple, painless, and quick process to transition from unstructured framemaker to either structured or dita? Sincerely, Joseph Lorenzini ___ /from earlier post Hi Joseph, I generally teach my students in a hands-on environment to convert legacy documents to XML in under 2 hours, so I do see the process as painless and quick. I'll be in Dallas at the Adobe booth next week for the STC Summit if you'd like a quick runthrough. Tom Aldous will also be there, and he's actually scheduled to a 15 minute runthrough of document conversion at the Adobe booth this coming Monday from 1:15-1:30 I have our complete booth schedule, including booth demos and Adobe presentations schedule available in PDF by request or at http://blogs.roundpeg.com/2010/04/adobe-stc-summit/ Of course the success
RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
The we in this case is a company we. So it was me. And one part time resource who did a few hours of work on things I didn't want to work with. A lot of review or fixes to content the client had flagged as a possible concern. In this specific case the content was a collection of references for command line info, but it had a pattern. Once we id'd it all and knew what went where it was mostly painless. And the we has years and years of experience on all this. I've worked with Frame since 1992 and with structured FrameMaker (FrameBuilder at the time) since then as well. Writers who simply need to use the DITA stuff, not convert it, set it up, develop templates, and lots more can learn the basics pretty quickly. There are good and bad to go with it, but all in all it's not a bad system. Once you know what you can (and cannot) do it's pretty smooth. Bernard -Original Message- From: Alison Craig [mailto:alison.cr...@ultrasonix.com] Sent: April-30-10 13:52 To: Bernard Aschwanden (Publishing Smarter); 'Matt Sullivan'; 'Joseph Lorenzini'; 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) BTW, with a system in place we converted 5,000 pages of legacy content that was in good shape to DITA in under a day. Just one question, who is we, meaning how many and what experience did all the we have with XML, DITA and Frame? As a lone writer with no XML, DITA or structured Frame experience, this is an extremely relevant question. And my own BTW is, I'm presuming that *my* content is good shape ;-))). At the very least, I know it backwards and forwards. Alison Alison Craig, Technical Writer Ultrasonix Medical Corporation Tel: (604) 279-8550, ext 127 E-mail: alison.cr...@ultrasonix.com -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Bernard Aschwanden (Publishing Smarter) Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:41 AM To: 'Matt Sullivan'; 'Joseph Lorenzini'; 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) Further to Matt's comments, I do conversion for clients, but usually 1000's of pages at a time, and sometimes it's Word, Frame, or sloppy Frame source content. In almost all cases we look for patterns. If they can be id'd then we are sitting pretty. Regardless of how good or bad the content is, if we can infer a structure (for example, even though Ctrl+b is used, if the content is in a step then it will be a uicontrol and if in a figure title it is a wintitle) then there is a lot of good to come of it. That's the discussion with clients part. I can set up a demo of the entire conversion of legacy content in under a few hours. Then I show the results to a client. It has to be fast as I do this type of demo for free. This means it's my time if there is too much manual process. So, yes, I can say it's a simple, painless, and quick process to transition BUT that assumes I'm starting with good content. It's also simple, painless, and quick to book a flight from my hometown to Dallas (which is where I'm headed as I type this response) because the infrastructure is in place. If however there wasn't a collection of airlines with flights to and from the cities, tools like Travelocity, AirCanada.com, United.com, and others then I have to pick up the phone. Call my travel agent. Leave a voice mail, Wait for a call back, compare pricing and departure times, dates and durations, and so many other options. That's work. Same with conversion. Once a system is in place and it works well then more and more people can take advantage of the benefits of structure. And, if it doesn't work, or doesn't add value, then I say don't do it. Sometimes a third-party demo of what CAN be done makes it pretty clear that it should be done. Other times it shows you that it's a bad idea. Ultimately it really is a choice to make between net costs and headaches versus net benefits. And, as Matt mentioned, I'm also in Dallas, and also at the STC booth. Feel free to drop in if you are on the list and we Matt, Tom, or I can help out, discuss ideas, and generally outline ideas that may be of use to anyone on the list looking to migrate to structure. BTW, with a system in place we converted 5,000 pages of legacy content that was in good shape to DITA in under a day. That included splitting the files up into topics, converting task/concept/reference correctly, resolving all cross references between topics, validating files, building XML, checking it into a CMS, and publishing to both PDF and HTML. Of course, another client with 500 pages of crap content took over a week to achieve half of those results. Start with quality, life/job is easier. Bernard Bernard Aschwanden Publishing Smarter www.publishingsmarter.com Write Less. Write Better. -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers
RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
Just yesterday I dove again into the Frame 7.2 structure folder, looked at all of the files - DTD, EDD, MOD, etc. Started reading the XML cookbook, and you know what? It's just not worth it to me as a solo writer. Copy and paste is easy and free (unless you're on a 3G iPhone...), and if the company's going to invest in my job (which they're not), I'd much rather it be a salary increase. Some of my work includes creating one-page cheat sheets in Adobe Illustrator, and that's one-way content; I'm pretty sure you can't import XML into Illustrator. I do see the benefits of the structured approach - I did it at a prior job - but the barrier to entry is just way too high if you're the only one that's going to be implementing it. -=Ed. -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers- boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Bernard Aschwanden (Publishing Smarter) Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 2:53 PM To: 'Alison Craig'; 'Matt Sullivan'; 'Joseph Lorenzini'; 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) The we in this case is a company we. So it was me. And one part time resource who did a few hours of work on things I didn't want to work with. A lot of review or fixes to content the client had flagged as a possible concern. In this specific case the content was a collection of references for command line info, but it had a pattern. Once we id'd it all and knew what went where it was mostly painless. And the we has years and years of experience on all this. I've worked with Frame since 1992 and with structured FrameMaker (FrameBuilder at the time) since then as well. Writers who simply need to use the DITA stuff, not convert it, set it up, develop templates, and lots more can learn the basics pretty quickly. There are good and bad to go with it, but all in all it's not a bad system. Once you know what you can (and cannot) do it's pretty smooth. Bernard ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
The question isn't/wasn't whether or not to structure...that decision is based on (among other things): -number of authors -level of reuse -need to enforce content model -need to pass content between one organizational group and another If the powers that be decide there is an ROI to structure, then that's what you'll do. Once that decision is made, as with any software or format conversion, there will be a conversion of legacy docs to the new format. As noted by myself, Bernard, and others, the ease of conversion to XML or DITA is mostly dependent on the quality of the legacy docs and their consistency in applying a stylesheet. If I were asked to convert docs to a format I'm not expert in, I'd expect a major headache. So should someone without XML, DITA, or DTD experience if they want to do this by themselves. However, relatively speaking, the pain of XML and DITA conversion is not appreciably greater than any other conversion, if you are going to retain full use of references, toc's, linking, graphics, etc. As you can see, from various posts, there are folks that can help. It's not our place to tell you (without analysis)whether or not to structure but we can effeciently and economically help with that transition. -Matt Matt Sullivan GRAFIX Training 714 960-6840 714 585-2335 cell /txt/sms skype: mattrsullivan http://www.grafixtraining.com http://blogs.roundpeg.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mattrsullivan http://twitter.com/mattrsullivan http://twitter.com/roundpeginc -Original Message- From: Ed [mailto:hamonwr...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 12:22 PM To: 'Bernard Aschwanden (Publishing Smarter)'; 'Alison Craig'; 'Matt Sullivan'; 'Joseph Lorenzini'; 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) Just yesterday I dove again into the Frame 7.2 structure folder, looked at all of the files - DTD, EDD, MOD, etc. Started reading the XML cookbook, and you know what? It's just not worth it to me as a solo writer. Copy and paste is easy and free (unless you're on a 3G iPhone...), and if the company's going to invest in my job (which they're not), I'd much rather it be a salary increase. Some of my work includes creating one-page cheat sheets in Adobe Illustrator, and that's one-way content; I'm pretty sure you can't import XML into Illustrator. I do see the benefits of the structured approach - I did it at a prior job - but the barrier to entry is just way too high if you're the only one that's going to be implementing it. -=Ed. -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers- boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Bernard Aschwanden (Publishing Smarter) Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 2:53 PM To: 'Alison Craig'; 'Matt Sullivan'; 'Joseph Lorenzini'; 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) The we in this case is a company we. So it was me. And one part time resource who did a few hours of work on things I didn't want to work with. A lot of review or fixes to content the client had flagged as a possible concern. In this specific case the content was a collection of references for command line info, but it had a pattern. Once we id'd it all and knew what went where it was mostly painless. And the we has years and years of experience on all this. I've worked with Frame since 1992 and with structured FrameMaker (FrameBuilder at the time) since then as well. Writers who simply need to use the DITA stuff, not convert it, set it up, develop templates, and lots more can learn the basics pretty quickly. There are good and bad to go with it, but all in all it's not a bad system. Once you know what you can (and cannot) do it's pretty smooth. Bernard ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
Having converted tens of thousands of pages, my opinion is that there is no entirely simple, painless and quick way to transition. Some of the things that other responses have mentioned can make the process simpl*er* and quick*er* but I doubt there will ever be a push-button-voila-we're-done solution. Even if you do get a smooth conversion from unstructured to structured as far as the mechanics, odds are some material will still need to be rewritten or reorganized. Authors writing in an unstructured environment rarely, if ever, write using a flow that naturally falls into a structure and so there is usually a post-conversion need to reorg. Of course, a content audit and rewrite before the conversion will mitigate much of that, but you just move some work from downstream to upstream. I will also say, without hesitation, that converting from unstructured to structured is absolutely time well-spent. If your content is a good candidate for structure (and not all is), you will never regret the time and effort you put into the conversion. Best, Leigh -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Matt Sullivan Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:24 PM To: 'Joseph Lorenzini'; 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) from earlier post While there's structured framemaker, dita, and a host of third party plugins can anyone really say its a simple, painless, and quick process to transition from unstructured framemaker to either structured or dita? Sincerely, Joseph Lorenzini _ The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3 ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
Matt- People are asking why it's so hard to convert. My point is that for many solo writers, it's hard to propose a conversion to management, and get buy-in, especially when there's doc to write that's currently being delivered just fine in their eyes. To successfully convert unstructured content to a structure, you need: An expert to create an EDD and/or DTD. An expert in XSL to create output. An expert to map your current styles to elements. An expert to help you update your content to shoe-horn into the new XML 'buckets'. An expert to train those who are going to be using the new tools. Now, that could be one person, or a team. However, it's still someone else that needs to be paid. It doesn't take a team to upgrade from Word to Frame. Converting to CHM has been mostly a one-button operation for years. If you want WebHelp, all you need is some HTML and CSS knowledge and a copy of a HAT. Once Pagemaker came around, it made publishing easier. Once Dreamweaver and FrontPage came around, it made creating web pages easier. Converting to structure may never get that easy, but it's gotta get easier than it is now. -=Ed. -Original Message- From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:m...@grafixtraining.com] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 3:42 PM To: 'Ed'; 'Bernard Aschwanden (Publishing Smarter)'; 'Alison Craig'; 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) The question isn't/wasn't whether or not to structure...that decision is based on (among other things): -number of authors -level of reuse -need to enforce content model -need to pass content between one organizational group and another If the powers that be decide there is an ROI to structure, then that's what you'll do. Once that decision is made, as with any software or format conversion, there will be a conversion of legacy docs to the new format. As noted by myself, Bernard, and others, the ease of conversion to XML or DITA is mostly dependent on the quality of the legacy docs and their consistency in applying a stylesheet. If I were asked to convert docs to a format I'm not expert in, I'd expect a major headache. So should someone without XML, DITA, or DTD experience if they want to do this by themselves. However, relatively speaking, the pain of XML and DITA conversion is not appreciably greater than any other conversion, if you are going to retain full use of references, toc's, linking, graphics, etc. As you can see, from various posts, there are folks that can help. It's not our place to tell you (without analysis)whether or not to structure but we can effeciently and economically help with that transition. -Matt Matt Sullivan GRAFIX Training 714 960-6840 714 585-2335 cell /txt/sms skype: mattrsullivan http://www.grafixtraining.com http://blogs.roundpeg.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mattrsullivan http://twitter.com/mattrsullivan http://twitter.com/roundpeginc ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
One quick note... The EDD/DTD, many of the XSL tools for output (to PDF/HTML/Help) and training on using the tools (Frame) for DITA are mostly done. There is an EDD and a default environment included in FrameMaker (and a lot of other DITA specific tools) already. The XSL is included for most outputs in the toolkit, but you likely have to tweak it. WebWorks supports DITA as a source to create PDF/HTML/Help using a lot of ideas you already have in your Frame or Word workflows. So does Mif2go, so does Robohelp. Some support is already in place. Training is widely available and I've mentioned in other postings (I think) that you can even try out the book I have for free by downloading the first five chapters from my site. I would agree on your points overall though. As tools continue to develop I think the overall workflow will get easier. Since I can work with the DITA stuff that Adobe includes I can do a demo for a client in days or less, not weeks. I can convert large volumes in weeks, or months, not months or years. However, mapping current styles, and the update of content to meet the new bucket system is part of the process and THAT is where I think the effort should be. Especially the part that teaches the new buckets. That's where the return can come from as well. The other problem with tools like Dreamweaver/FrontPage (opinion) was the masses who then felt oh, I can create a webpage, it's easy and decided to do so. There is a lot of sloppy code still out there and a lot of overhead in tools like IE, Firefox, Chrome, and others to deal with that. Every system has good/bad, and each will have people who argue for/against them. I think the best bet is to get as much background as you can, evaluate options, ask for free stuff (demo, trial versions) and see what does or does not work. As this is on the Framers list I think most of us agree that Frame is a better tool for tech comm than Word, but I think that we can also generally agree that, if it is used well, with best practices, Word can do a decent amount of things. It's a matter of education, experience, best practice, workflow, and overall management of all the content you need to work with. Put it all together and you can have a decent system. The same with/without DITA/structure. It may or may not work for all, but if you do plan to use it, do the homework and use it correctly. Hope that helps. Boy, this has been a good discussion on an interesting topic. Bernard -Original Message- From: Ed [mailto:hamonwr...@hotmail.com] Sent: April-30-10 16:49 To: 'Matt Sullivan'; 'Bernard Aschwanden (Publishing Smarter)'; 'Alison Craig'; 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) Matt- People are asking why it's so hard to convert. My point is that for many solo writers, it's hard to propose a conversion to management, and get buy-in, especially when there's doc to write that's currently being delivered just fine in their eyes. To successfully convert unstructured content to a structure, you need: An expert to create an EDD and/or DTD. An expert in XSL to create output. An expert to map your current styles to elements. An expert to help you update your content to shoe-horn into the new XML 'buckets'. An expert to train those who are going to be using the new tools. Now, that could be one person, or a team. However, it's still someone else that needs to be paid. It doesn't take a team to upgrade from Word to Frame. Converting to CHM has been mostly a one-button operation for years. If you want WebHelp, all you need is some HTML and CSS knowledge and a copy of a HAT. Once Pagemaker came around, it made publishing easier. Once Dreamweaver and FrontPage came around, it made creating web pages easier. Converting to structure may never get that easy, but it's gotta get easier than it is now. -=Ed. -Original Message- From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:m...@grafixtraining.com] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 3:42 PM To: 'Ed'; 'Bernard Aschwanden (Publishing Smarter)'; 'Alison Craig'; 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) The question isn't/wasn't whether or not to structure...that decision is based on (among other things): -number of authors -level of reuse -need to enforce content model -need to pass content between one organizational group and another If the powers that be decide there is an ROI to structure, then that's what you'll do. Once that decision is made, as with any software or format conversion, there will be a conversion of legacy docs to the new format. As noted by myself, Bernard, and others, the ease of conversion to XML or DITA is mostly dependent on the quality of the legacy docs and their consistency in applying a stylesheet. If I were asked to convert docs to a format I'm not expert in, I'd expect a major headache. So should someone without XML, DITA, or DTD
RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
Hi Ed, I think you have too many experts in your list. Many of us learned the steps as novices. For example, An expert to create an EDD and/or DTD. You can learn to create an EDD by reading the FrameMaker documentation. If you are going to use DITA, FrameMaker comes with an EDD that you can learn to edit. An expert in XSL to create output. If you are authoring in FrameMaker, you can continue to use FrameMaker for your print and PDF output. If that's all you need, then you don't need XSL. If you are using WebWorks, etc. for help or HTML, you can continue to use that with your structured documents. An expert to map your current styles to elements. Since you know your unstructured content, you are the expert that is going to do this. Granted, you will have to become familiar with the target structure, but that may be easier than the structure expert becoming familiar with your unstructured documents. You are going to have to learn the target structure anyway to author in it, so may as well learn by building the conversion table. An expert to help you update your content to shoe-horn into the new XML 'buckets'. Again, that could be you, not an expert. An expert to train those who are going to be using the new tools. For lone writers, that would be you. My main point is that you can move to structure in a measured, incremental basis and learn as you go. Before you know it, you will be the expert. Rick Quatro Carmen Publishing Inc. 585-659-8267 r...@frameexpert.com *** Frame Automation blog at http://frameautomation.com ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
Albeit, we did it with a two-person team and in small chunks, but we didn't have an expert for almost any of the process (except taking an introduction course with Bernard so we could hit the ground speed walking). We use FM9, which has its own DTD and EDD for DITA. We've learned on our own how to tweak the EDD according to our own needs. We converted unstructured to structured manually without automated conversion. We use FM9 to output our PDFs, and WebWorks ePublisher to create our HTML output. ePub's DITA FM to HTML works wonderfully well. We updated/reorganized/rewrote our content ourselves to fit the DITA model. We had a coop student learn to use DITA within a few weeks while he was also learning to use FM. All this while we were also creating new content. I admit, I put in a lot of hours in last year, and we've made mistakes along the way, but we've learned from them. All in all, it was well worth it for us. The proof of the pudding (to management) was when we were able to take a two-volume documentation set and turn it into a seven-volume set within a couple of days. It's not for everyone, I agree. But--I don't know...call it sheer bloody mindedness--I wanted it badly enough to do it anyway. Nadine --- On Fri, 4/30/10, Ed hamonwr...@hotmail.com wrote: From: Ed hamonwr...@hotmail.com Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) To: 'Matt Sullivan' m...@grafixtraining.com, 'Bernard Aschwanden (Publishing Smarter)' bern...@publishingsmarter.com, 'Alison Craig' alison.cr...@ultrasonix.com, 'FrameMaker Forum' framers@lists.frameusers.com Date: Friday, April 30, 2010, 4:48 PM Matt- People are asking why it's so hard to convert. My point is that for many solo writers, it's hard to propose a conversion to management, and get buy-in, especially when there's doc to write that's currently being delivered just fine in their eyes. To successfully convert unstructured content to a structure, you need: An expert to create an EDD and/or DTD. An expert in XSL to create output. An expert to map your current styles to elements. An expert to help you update your content to shoe-horn into the new XML 'buckets'. An expert to train those who are going to be using the new tools. Now, that could be one person, or a team. However, it's still someone else that needs to be paid. It doesn't take a team to upgrade from Word to Frame. Converting to CHM has been mostly a one-button operation for years. If you want WebHelp, all you need is some HTML and CSS knowledge and a copy of a HAT. Once Pagemaker came around, it made publishing easier. Once Dreamweaver and FrontPage came around, it made creating web pages easier. Converting to structure may never get that easy, but it's gotta get easier than it is now. -=Ed. -Original Message- From: Matt Sullivan [mailto:m...@grafixtraining.com] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 3:42 PM To: 'Ed'; 'Bernard Aschwanden (Publishing Smarter)'; 'Alison Craig'; 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) The question isn't/wasn't whether or not to structure...that decision is based on (among other things): -number of authors -level of reuse -need to enforce content model -need to pass content between one organizational group and another If the powers that be decide there is an ROI to structure, then that's what you'll do. Once that decision is made, as with any software or format conversion, there will be a conversion of legacy docs to the new format. As noted by myself, Bernard, and others, the ease of conversion to XML or DITA is mostly dependent on the quality of the legacy docs and their consistency in applying a stylesheet. If I were asked to convert docs to a format I'm not expert in, I'd expect a major headache. So should someone without XML, DITA, or DTD experience if they want to do this by themselves. However, relatively speaking, the pain of XML and DITA conversion is not appreciably greater than any other conversion, if you are going to retain full use of references, toc's, linking, graphics, etc. As you can see, from various posts, there are folks that can help. It's not our place to tell you (without analysis)whether or not to structure but we can effeciently and economically help with that transition. -Matt Matt Sullivan GRAFIX Training 714 960-6840 714 585-2335 cell /txt/sms skype: mattrsullivan http://www.grafixtraining.com http://blogs.roundpeg.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mattrsullivan http://twitter.com/mattrsullivan http://twitter.com/roundpeginc ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as generic...@yahoo.ca. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe
RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
I'm coming from this formerly working in a department of 30 writers that converted from unstructured Frame to structured using a content management system. It was a full department effort because 'they' didn't want to hire (pay) any consultants. Perhaps we went about it wrong, but it was what it was. I recall at the time (2005-ish) we had to put all of these pieces together for whatever reason. And I remember that the output was pretty ugly. I went to an XSL class and was completely lost. Maybe it's changed since then, but XSL spooked me pretty well. I enjoy hacking XML and CSS, so maybe I'll look at this incrementally. -=Ed. -Original Message- From: Rick Quatro [mailto:r...@rickquatro.com] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 5:01 PM To: 'Ed'; 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) Hi Ed, I think you have too many experts in your list. Many of us learned the steps as novices. For example, An expert to create an EDD and/or DTD. You can learn to create an EDD by reading the FrameMaker documentation. If you are going to use DITA, FrameMaker comes with an EDD that you can learn to edit. An expert in XSL to create output. If you are authoring in FrameMaker, you can continue to use FrameMaker for your print and PDF output. If that's all you need, then you don't need XSL. If you are using WebWorks, etc. for help or HTML, you can continue to use that with your structured documents. An expert to map your current styles to elements. Since you know your unstructured content, you are the expert that is going to do this. Granted, you will have to become familiar with the target structure, but that may be easier than the structure expert becoming familiar with your unstructured documents. You are going to have to learn the target structure anyway to author in it, so may as well learn by building the conversion table. An expert to help you update your content to shoe-horn into the new XML 'buckets'. Again, that could be you, not an expert. An expert to train those who are going to be using the new tools. For lone writers, that would be you. My main point is that you can move to structure in a measured, incremental basis and learn as you go. Before you know it, you will be the expert. Rick Quatro Carmen Publishing Inc. 585-659-8267 r...@frameexpert.com *** Frame Automation blog at http://frameautomation.com ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:15:17 -0400, Ed hamonwr...@hotmail.com wrote: I went to an XSL class and was completely lost. Maybe it's changed since then, but XSL spooked me pretty well. I enjoy hacking XML and CSS, so maybe I'll look at this incrementally. You aren't the only one who finds XSLT challenging! I've been programming for 35 years (mainly C++ now), and find it really opaque. Worse than perl, and that's saying a lot. ;-) That's one of the reasons we did DITA2Go as an alternative to the DITA OT that is also affordable, and works directly from the DITA source without importing into something else first. We specify the formatting in a very CSS-like way, and it works for all the HTML *and* RTF outputs (the same output formats as in Mif2Go). Anyone who wants to see what sort of XSLT support is needed for the DITA OT should subscribe to [dita-users]: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dita-users/ Or at least read through the archives. It's informative. -- Jeremy H. Griffith jer...@omsys.com DITA2Go site: http://www.dita2go.com/ ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
from earlier post While there's structured framemaker, dita, and a host of third party plugins can anyone really say its a simple, painless, and quick process to transition from unstructured framemaker to either structured or dita? Sincerely, Joseph Lorenzini ___ /from earlier post Hi Joseph, I generally teach my students in a hands-on environment to convert legacy documents to XML in under 2 hours, so I do see the process as painless and quick. I'll be in Dallas at the Adobe booth next week for the STC Summit if you'd like a quick runthrough. Tom Aldous will also be there, and he's actually scheduled to a 15 minute runthrough of document conversion at the Adobe booth this coming Monday from 1:15-1:30 I have our complete booth schedule, including booth demos and Adobe presentations schedule available in PDF by request or at http://blogs.roundpeg.com/2010/04/adobe-stc-summit/ Of course the success of the conversion depends upon the extent to which the content adheres to a standard. For example, if your Word docs all use Normal+ for formatting, or if your FM docs are riddled with *Body, then no logic can be applied and thus, no easy conversion exists. So if your authors worked with style sheets, the supplied conversion tools (FM conversion tables) are well-worth the effort and can convert any number of documents to fairly valid XML with little relative effort. If they didn't, I know of no tool, for FM or any other editor, that will analyze and structure documents using ad hoc formatting. You are currently subscribed to framers as m...@grafixtraining.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/matt%40grafixtraining.co m Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
It can be, depending on Complexity of your structure EDD Complexity of your unstructured documents Cleanliness of your unstructured documents Your ability in creating a conversion table Your patience This list is not all inclusive. David Spreadbury Sr. Technical Writer -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Matt Sullivan Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:24 PM To: 'Joseph Lorenzini'; 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) from earlier post While there's structured framemaker, dita, and a host of third party plugins can anyone really say its a simple, painless, and quick process to transition from unstructured framemaker to either structured or dita? Sincerely, Joseph Lorenzini ___ /from earlier post ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:23:54 -0700, Matt Sullivan m...@grafixtraining.com wrote: While there's structured framemaker, dita, and a host of third party plugins can anyone really say its a simple, painless, and quick process to transition from unstructured framemaker to either structured or dita? They can say it, but it's unlikely to be true. ;-) The reason is simple. In unstructured Frame, formats are presentational in nature. You may use Indented for several different kinds of text, where all they have in common is the plain indentation. That's usual; why have different formats if there is no difference in the applied formatting? Structured designs, like DITA, have elements that are semantic in nature. They ignore presentation. (Frame's EDDs are a hybrid.) So there is usually no simple mapping from formats to elements. The info needed to do that mapping is not in the format system; it is in the mind of the author. So you'll frequently need to add information to the unstructured file to guide the conversion process. The alternative is to do the fixup by hand after conversion, but that is usually many times worse than doing it up front. OTOH, once you do the conversion, you may well gain enormous benefits, mainly with much improved single- sourcing and re-use. This is especially true when localization is involved; the savings in the first round of translations may pay for the entire process. Not all structures are the same, and it's important to choose the one that fits your docs best. Often this is DITA; for some, it may be DocBook. You can roll your own, but that is a very-high-cost route, since you will have to build all your own tools too. If you aren't a megacorp, forget it. ;-) Remember, DITA was what came out when IBM rolled its own... and the staffing required to do that was not small. As to how to get there, start by learning all about the structure you plan to use. There are plenty of resources about DITA, starting with the OASIS specs and going on from there. We think authors should be very involved with the conversion process; they will have to live with the results. Start small and build. For Frame, you can get an idea of conversion options from a webinar that Sriptorium produced, that looks at three methods: http://bit.ly/61MvPx It starts with Frame's native conversion tables; the Mif2Go part is at 33:15. ;-) Once you have converted to DITA (or DocBook), you have a choice of editing tools, like oXygenXML, XMetaL, Arbortext, XML Mind, and Frame. If you stick with Frame, you *must* have DITA-FMx to make it work without major pain and hair loss: http://www.leximation.com/dita-fmx/ So a good way to start is by creating some new doc content in DITA-FMx, to get into the DITA worldview. There's a free demo version. HTH! -- Jeremy H. Griffith jer...@omsys.com DITA2Go site: http://www.dita2go.com/ ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
As a point of correction... I didn't state the para you've attributed to me and I *do not* agree with it. My post was entirely related to the ability to structure documents to a very useable degree with nothing more than a few hours of education and an iterative approach. The requirements: -Knowledge of one's DTD or schema -No more than 2 hours of hands-on education -Docs that adhere to a stylesheet -A day or two to analyse how one's linear paragraph docs map into the content model (DTD or schema) provided -Matt Matt Sullivan GRAFIX Training 714 960-6840 714 585-2335 cell /txt/sms skype: mattrsullivan http://www.grafixtraining.com http://blogs.roundpeg.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mattrsullivan http://twitter.com/mattrsullivan http://twitter.com/roundpeginc -Original Message- From: framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-boun...@lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy H. Griffith Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:25 PM To: 'FrameMaker Forum' Subject: Re: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies) On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:23:54 -0700, Matt Sullivan m...@grafixtraining.com wrote: While there's structured framemaker, dita, and a host of third party plugins can anyone really say its a simple, painless, and quick process to transition from unstructured framemaker to either structured or dita? They can say it, but it's unlikely to be true. ;-) The reason is simple. In unstructured Frame, formats are presentational in nature. You may use Indented for several different kinds of text, where all they have in common is the plain indentation. That's usual; why have different formats if there is no difference in the applied formatting? Structured designs, like DITA, have elements that are semantic in nature. They ignore presentation. (Frame's EDDs are a hybrid.) So there is usually no simple mapping from formats to elements. The info needed to do that mapping is not in the format system; it is in the mind of the author. So you'll frequently need to add information to the unstructured file to guide the conversion process. The alternative is to do the fixup by hand after conversion, but that is usually many times worse than doing it up front. OTOH, once you do the conversion, you may well gain enormous benefits, mainly with much improved single- sourcing and re-use. This is especially true when localization is involved; the savings in the first round of translations may pay for the entire process. Not all structures are the same, and it's important to choose the one that fits your docs best. Often this is DITA; for some, it may be DocBook. You can roll your own, but that is a very-high-cost route, since you will have to build all your own tools too. If you aren't a megacorp, forget it. ;-) Remember, DITA was what came out when IBM rolled its own... and the staffing required to do that was not small. As to how to get there, start by learning all about the structure you plan to use. There are plenty of resources about DITA, starting with the OASIS specs and going on from there. We think authors should be very involved with the conversion process; they will have to live with the results. Start small and build. For Frame, you can get an idea of conversion options from a webinar that Sriptorium produced, that looks at three methods: http://bit.ly/61MvPx It starts with Frame's native conversion tables; the Mif2Go part is at 33:15. ;-) Once you have converted to DITA (or DocBook), you have a choice of editing tools, like oXygenXML, XMetaL, Arbortext, XML Mind, and Frame. If you stick with Frame, you *must* have DITA-FMx to make it work without major pain and hair loss: http://www.leximation.com/dita-fmx/ So a good way to start is by creating some new doc content in DITA-FMx, to get into the DITA worldview. There's a free demo version. HTH! -- Jeremy H. Griffith jer...@omsys.com DITA2Go site: http://www.dita2go.com/ ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as m...@grafixtraining.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/matt%40grafixtraining.co m Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: Structuring documents (was RE: Adobe's New Corporate Strategies)
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:54:08 -0700, Matt Sullivan m...@grafixtraining.com wrote: As a point of correction... I didn't state the para you've attributed to me and I *do not* agree with it. Ah. You were quoting it. I didn't notice that, because you had omitted the usual top attribution to the author, Joseph Lorenzini, who was the person I thought I was responding to. I didn't even notice your comments below his sig; I thought *that* was the earlier quote, like it said it was. My apologies for not reading carefully enough. -- Jeremy H. Griffith, at Omni Systems Inc. jer...@omsys.com http://www.omsys.com/ ___ You are currently subscribed to framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
