RE: The Old Argument: FrameMaker vs. MS Word

[Kevin McLauchlan <KMcLauchlan -at- chrysalis-its -dot- com>]

I'm a multi-tasker because I *am* the department... :-)

However, even when we get big enough to support a 
department of (as in somebody's example) five, I 
believe I would go with four more jacks'n'jills, 
rather than the specialists.

As soon as there's a DTP specialist, the writer must 
spend a good deal of time interacting with the 
specialist.  If all I did was write straight text 
with the odd heading and the odd <insert fig 9 here>, 
then there'd be no problem.  But, I like to make 
side-bars and NOTE/WARNING/GOOD-TO-KNOW-INFO boxes 
for background and explanatory stuff that belongs 
near-but-not-in the main flow of text. So, if I'm 
controlling where that stuff appears, and how it 
appears -- which aspects tell me a lot about what 
the content should be -- then I'm doing just about 
as much DTP as gets done around here... or as needs 
to get done.  I, and any other writer in my group, 
would be constantly doing part of the DTP specialist's 
job, or in consultation/tug'o'war with said 
specialist.  Gimme Frame if I can, Word if I must. :-)

If I need fancy DTP or a major facelift (hey! I heard 
that! you know I meant the docs...) I can hire an 
insultant to set it up and then go away. The live-in 
help and I can then use the new templates, or even 
generate our own templates to match the new "look"... 
because, hey, we can; we're not narrow specialists.

Now, about editing...  hmm.  I'm of two minds, there.
I'd LOVE to have a good editor -- somebody I could 
trust to be a fount of editing knowledge, and to be
sharp of eye, and to stand up for principles and 
for good writing.  This person would also have to 
be a good and patient, though exacting, teacher, 
so that my writers would absorb much of that good 
stuff. 

But then... if you've GOT at least two or three 
well-seasoned writers with decent editing skills, 
then THEY can impart to the juniors AND there's 
always somebody around to do editing work, 
even when some people (like the marvelous editor 
of the previous paragraph) is away on vacation, 
course/seminar, maternity leave, jury duty, 
out-of-body projection, house-arrest...

Well, until my department numbers ten or more 
(with workload to match, of course), I doubt I 
could justify hiring somebody whose only job 
was editing.  I'll stick with a few good, 
flexible writers who can make (and implement) 
some basic layout decisions, and who can edit 
each others' work and teach the juniors how to 
do it all, as well... with me benevolently 
overseeing, of course... :-)

And, anybody who wants to come in looking to 
learn some of those skills and fit in, should 
probably not call her/himself senior, or even 
intermediate, on the basis of writing/research 
skills alone.

Well then... the editor bit took me off topic, 
but the DTP bit says: Gimme Frame.

Oops! There's more.  If I could persuade this 
place to go SGML, I could happily do most of 
my writing with a text editor.  But then, I'd 
be spending chunks of time designing/refining 
DTDs (after I learn how) over on FM+SGML and 
sorting out layout issues ANYWAY.

YMMV

Carry on.

/k

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lane Pasut [mailto:Larissa -dot- Pasut -at- OmegaResearch -dot- com]
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 11:51 AM
> To: TECHWR-L
> Subject: RE: The Old Argument: FrameMaker vs. MS Word
> 
> 
> I agree, and contend that layout work extends beyond just 
> visual appeal. The
> design/layout impacts comprehension, so that's my domain. I 
> see the ability
> to layout/design a document as part and parcel of technical writing, a
> definite plus in your portfolio of skills... but then again, 
> I am also one
> of those multi-taskers... my 2 cents thrown in. 
>