Re: About mil/heavy industries documentation standards (long)

Subject: Re: About mil/heavy industries documentation standards (long)
From: eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com
To: Dick Margulis <margulis -at- fiam -dot- net>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:19:34 -0500

Dick Margulis <margulis -at- fiam -dot- net> wrote on 02/12/2004 01:16:26 PM:
> The discussion here is about a standard and whether the
> standard would be improved by making it more complete.

Well, the discussion/question was about why it was left out of the
standard.

The reason is simple. When the standards committee sits down to make sure
Aircraft stop falling out of the sky, where do they devote their time?
Standardising how the manual looks, or standardising what it contains?

Time permitting, having the standards committee point to other references
may be a good help. And indeed for warnings, symbols, and other
conventions, standards do exist. This is why any contract worth its salt
will refer to numerous standards and not just one. For example, the
information standard for the industry may be accepted worldwide, but the
"European" ISO standards for warnings placards may not be acceptable to a
North-American client.

However the way in which information is presented and how the
system/superstructure for gathering, storing, and presenting the
standardised content is set up is what differentiates the efficiency,
cost, and branding of the various documentation vendors and aircraft
maintenance facilities.

Eric L. Dunn
Senior Technical Writer




Previous by Author: RE: About mil/heavy industries documentation standards (long)
Next by Author: RE: About mil/heavy industries documentation standards (long)
Previous by Thread: RE: RE: About mil/heavy industries documentation standards (long)
Next by Thread: RE: About mil/heavy industries documentation standards (long)


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads