Just an observation of mine, I think Mr Lomax already suggested that the manuals would probably be better written by users, rather than developers, and he is most likely correct.
The precious little snippets of info that would make a new users life so much easier are most often missing, as the developers\technical authors will probably take some steps for granted. This is not to say the technical writers employed by Altium are not good, but they already know the software too well and hence produce what I would call a technical or reference manual, rather than a user manual. I test my user manuals on staff to make sure they can follow operations or work instructions without error, I specifically use staff not familiar with the process to be tested to gauge the manuals effectiveness. Any comments are included in the remedial action process loop and fixed before release. For the amount of features in DXP I guess the manual would need to be really thick and the manual could well end up sucking as much resources as the software itself! if Altium followed the procedures above, just to be outdated when new features are added. As for updates well........ So I guess I would need to say that PDF manuals are better for now, along with the additional papers & articles published by Altium. Best Regards John A. Ross RSD Communications ltd Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW http://www.rsd.tv ================================== > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 1:49 AM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] 2004 DXP Looks Great, > > On 12:16 PM 10/03/2004, DUTTON Phil said: > >Bill, > > > >My DXP is still in > >the box. > > <..snip..> > > > There are some > >good things in DXP, but there are many features that really > don't seem > >to help my productivity. > > I am intrigued by this. How do the people that haven't used > something know it is not more (or less) productive than what > they are using. I guess it happens not to be the sort of > statement I would make, so I am interested in the answer. I > tend to spend longer than others investigating tools to see > what I like and dislike; I suspect I waste too much time on > this sort of thing. I can't see how one knows that something > is no good until you try it. > > It may very well be the case that the features and fixes are > not worth your time and effort. The trick with all this > stuff is picking when, and *where*, to jump. > > Some people are using DXP and P2004. Do they have a > competitive advantage or not? What about those using other > CAE programs? I don't know the answer to this. > > I have still not see a detailed comparison, done by real > knowledgeable users, of a wide range of CAE programs. The > closest I have seen is the comments by John Ross (thanks, > John). I do know what I prefer to use, but I don't know if I > am more or less productive than all the other options out > there. How does one know? > > All the best, > Ian > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
