Re: Re: Process kills the dot.com

[Andrew Plato <intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

--- Dan Emory <danemory -at- primenet -dot- com> wrote:

- Process is an unavoidable part of everything we do. It cannot
- be avoided. Bad process produces worthless crap. Good process
- produces great architecture, great books, great software, and
- outstanding examples of technical communication.

I agree with that in principle but not in practice. Process SEEMS to be in
everything. More often than not it is just chaos masquerading as order - but
thats another debate.
 
- Does the fact that most commercial buildings and homes are mediocre
- (or, as Andrew would say, "worthless crap") mean that overconcern about
- structure is the cause, and architects would be better off just cobbling 
- things together?

Of course not. I never said nor have I suggested that people avoid planning or
organizing things. Its just that designs and organization do not a house make.
Without the raw materials (the content) the house could not exist. Without
skilled hardworking tradespeople who understand their content, the brilliant
designs would be useless. 

- And when you visit a Frank Lloyd Wright house (e.g., Falling Water),
- Andrew, can you deny that logical analysis, ingenious structure,
- and attention to "every little nuance" are at the core of his genius?

In case you didn't know, falling water is falling apart. So goes for logical
analysis. 

I never have said anywhere Don that people ignore nuance and just bang out
everything. What I have said is that processes and "logical analysis" are too
often overdone at the expense of content. People spend billions of hours
building exquisite systems that they shove crap into. 

> No one, and certainly not Frank Lloyd Wright, would suggest that
> one structure fits all, but sound structure, whether it be for a
> building or a technical document, must be derived from
> fundamental principles that apply to the design of
> structures of any given type.

I disagree. Sound structure comes from sound elements. To use your own analogy
- a building can have the best design in the universe. But if the bricks and
mortar are of inferior quality and crumble when put under stress - the design,
structure, and brilliance are all worthless. 
 
> Someone (Einstein?) explained that genius is 90%
> attention to detail, and 10% flashes of insight. Yet
> Andrew argues that detail and nuance are the enemy of
> good technical writing. Must only geniuses be concerned
> about details and nuances?

You're reinterpreting my argument, Don. I am arguing that a process cannot
take the place of genius or attention to detail. A process, rule, procedure
cannot serve the function of paying attention to details. It can help but it
cannot replace. 

- We all learned in high school English class that outlining what
- you are going to write is a first principle, 

Good outlines do not lead to well written documents. 

- and that the intrinsic
- structure of any written piece determines whether it will be
- successful. Yet Andrew argues that "organization and structure
- of information is not the 'value' of that information."

It isn't. The content of a document is the meat. You hang that meat on a
structure to make it a little more edible to those reading. But the core fact
remains - without the meat you don't have dick to eat. 

(No pun intended.)


- In Andrew's lexicon, "structure, is actually a code word for XML
- and SGML, which he clearly does not understand well enough
- to spout off constantly about. 

I NEVER have equated "structure" to XML or SGML. Again, you're reinterpreting
my messages to suit your own needs.

Actually, Don I know XML just fine. It too is not the end-all-be-all of human
existence. Its a nice standard/tool/whatever but it simply does not fit all
places. Honestly, I see a lot of writers burning millions of hours fiddling
with XML when they would do themselves a lot better to learn what it is they
are going to shove into that XML. 

- The fundamental things these
- languages add to documents are pre-defined structure,
- metadata and independence from proprietary formats. They dictate
- nothing about what the structure should be. That's the job of the
- people who develop Document Type Definitions (DTDs). Some
- DTDs (typically those developed by government bodies)
- dictate highly rigid structures, reflecting a proclivity for
- micromanagent. But other DTDs allow great flexibility in
- structure, permitting them to be adapted to many different
- situations.

Yes, but the 900,000 hours it takes to build this fantastic structure of XML
marvel are all worth zero if the data you're shoving into this system sucks.  

I've worked on some some XML systems. They can be cool and quite useful. They
can also be nothing more than a "fiddle tool" (in Andrew lexicon). As in
something that gives people something to fiddle with and avoid the mundane
tasks of actually having to WRITE. 

Yes, for massive, globally humongus document sets, nobody - not even me - will
argue that it isn't wise to build some reusability into the writing process.
Process is not inherently evil - just suspect. 

I don't fear processes, I fear rigidity. I fear people who can't comprehend the
content calling themselves "writers." 

Another poster said it correctly - a process freak is as bad as an anti-process
freak. 

XML and rigid, universally mandated standards are not an answer. They treat the
symptoms of poor documentation. They don't cure the disease.

The only thing that can cure poor documents is writers who know what they hell
they are documenting. 

Andrew Plato


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Learn how to develop HTML-based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver!
Dec. 7-8, 2000, Orlando, FL -- $100 discount for STC members.
http://www.weisner.com/training/dreamweaver_help.htm or 800-646-9989.

Your web site localized into 32 languages? Maybe not now, but sooner than 
you think. Download ForeignExchange's FREE paper, "3 steps to successful 
translation management" at http://www.fxtrans.com/3steps.html?tw.

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.