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: Microsoft Documentation From:"Bulloch, Scott" <scott -dot- bulloch -at- sap -dot- com> To:TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:44:25 +0100
John Posada said:
> I'm trying to make a case for FM at my place and I was talking to my
> manager.
>
> What I think would be the case is that the writers work in Word to
> create content, but then run that content through some post process that
> creates the final output...maybe the post process is FM, maybe it's
> custom, but I need to know...it may be the key to getting out from under
> Microsoft Word's thumb.
What you describe in your last paragraph is exactly what we did in a previous group at SAP. We would create our documents as individual chapters in Word, as that's what most consultants and authors were familiar with.
After we got to what we called "90% done" status, we'd then transition it into FrameMaker for cleanup and post-production. We'd generate our PDFs for online download from that, and then send the PS files to the printer for the printed books.
Essentially, our experience with Word was that it was perfectly fine for smaller documents (such as the individual chapters), but when you were talking about doing a book of at least a few hundred pages, you needed something more capable. In our case, Framemaker was it.
