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.
Subject:RE: PDF to RTF extraction From:"Balchunas, John" <JBalchunas -at- orgtek -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Thu, 08 Mar 2001 10:04:18 -0500
Sean,
Very good points. I was originally very opposed to the idea of sending the
source files, but the points your making are valid.
My department is trying to avoid setting a precedent for distributing the
source files outside of the department. We are afraid that by sending the
source files to a few people, we'll be hounded by marketing and other
departments for source files (using the excuse, "Well, you sent source files
to so and so...").
By sending them PDFs, we're able to retain control of the source files.
We're in the process of placing a lot of our package inserts, labeling, and
manuals on a company intranet as PDFs. It would save us the trouble of
accommodating such requests if national companies could eventually pull the
PDF off the intranet and do what they want with it. As Sanjay mentioned,
the national companies would be making changes at their own risk, not ours.
The onus would also be on them to maintain the manual they created.
Are my concerns unreasonable?
Any more thoughts very appreciated.
Thanks,
John Balchunas
-----Original Message-----
From: Brierley, Sean [mailto:Sean -at- Quodata -dot- Com]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:47 AM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: RE: PDF to RTF extraction (Anybody have any experience with
Iceni 's G emini?)
That's very nice but:
1) Either editing the manual is permitted
2) Or editing the manual is not permitted
If 1), then distribute the source files, don't make people jump through PDF
editing hoops. To do the latter is ridiculous, who are you fooling? To do
the latter is a waste of company resources, and deliberately so.
If 2) then distribute the PDF with instructions that none may edit it.
Cheers,
Sean
sean -at- quodata -dot- com
-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjay Srikonda [SMTP:sanjay -dot- srikonda -at- kiodex -dot- com]
The reasoning behind NOT distributing the actual source is that the
parent
company can then say that the manual being produced IS the official
release,
anything used ONLY internally and changed by staff via PDF---->RTF
conversion is allowable but only at the other division's risk.
Plus, it's
also up to them (the other division) to maintain an up-to-date
manual that
they've customized from the PDFs to RTF via their conversion.
Sometimes,
it's just not very easy to argue that only one version of a manual
should
exist if you've got a manager over you in another department in a
physically
separated location saying they'd like to customize the manual for
their own
use.
<snip>
IPCC 01, the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference,
October 24-27, 2001 at historic La Fonda in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.
CALL FOR PAPERS OPEN UNTIL MARCH 15. http://ieeepcs.org/2001/
---
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.