TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Chunking information (Was: multiple TWs for a project)
Subject:Chunking information (Was: multiple TWs for a project) From:Jean Weber <jean -at- wrevenge -dot- com -dot- au> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:08:02 +1000
Tony's use of the word "chunking" is the meaning I'm familiar with. Such
"chunked" information can then become "chunks" in the presentation and
layout sense. This use of the term (logical chunks rather than visual
chunks) may be more apparent when writing online help, where the chunks of
information must be able to stand alone, because you don't know in what
order someone will read them.
In such a project, it's relatively easy to parcel out chunks of the work to
different writers -- but planning, coordination and good editing is
essential. I haven't been following this thread closely, so I'm not sure
what "dependencies" Tony is talking about, but two I can think of are
consistency of terminology and writing style, so that users can develop
expectations of what they will find where in a help topic, and what the
various *things* in the product are called.
>Tony Markatos responds:
>
>The logical way to chunk (break into smaller pieces) procedural information
>is by task. In this way the dependencies between the chunks are minimized.
>
Is your use of the word common? "Chunking" in my experience is about
presentation and layout only. Rather than repeat my initial comment, please
read it again.
