Re: single-sourcing/robohelp/framemaker

Subject: Re: single-sourcing/robohelp/framemaker
From: Bill Swallow <techcommdood -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:51:43 -0500


> I was particularly interested in Bill's comment regarding
> single-sourcing/repurposing.

*blush* gosh ;-)

> As I said before I have used FrameMaker and WebWorks before, and so am
> used to being able to create documention in FrameMaker and then create
> an online help with the same information using WebWorks. From what I'd
> read, and from Macromedia's response, I assumed that it was more or less
> the same with RoboHelp. Except that there was an interim stage
> converting the files to mif because RoboHelp can't deal with fm files.

Not the same with RoboHelp (RH) at all. This is why they created
RoboHelp for FrameMaker (RHFM). But RHFM was discontinued after the
Macromedia purchase of eHelp, so there you go. You cannot round-trip
files from FM to RH and back, therefore it's a repurposing workflow if
you are using FM. Now, RH does sport a "build print documentation"
option that works with Word. I've heard mixed reviews of this feature
from various folks here on Techwr-L, and on other lists such as HATT.

> From your response I assume that once the information from FrameMaker is
> in RoboHelp there is a lot of manual work to be done, in order to get
> the online help? Hence making it, as you say, repurposing instead of
> single-sourcing.

The amount of manual work is relative. If you have thoroughly thought
out your FM templates, your RH templates, and the process to get from
FM to RH, it certainly is possible to bring in FM content with minimal
tweaking. But, you'll have to either do this for ever update to the FM
source (in other words, create a new project and do it all over again)
or you'll have to begin maintaining two sets of similar documentation
(one in FM, one in RH).

> This is very important for us, as we do want to
> single-source: pdfs and online help from a single source without
> editing/manual reworking etc. Would anyone know how much work has to be
> done after importing?

See above. However, it looks like you are building a case for
single-sourcing, in which case you may have a valid ground for
suggesting a switch to WWP, given RH will cost your company money in
rework of existing content every time you want to release an updated
Help deliverable.

> I haven't used RoboHelp yet, so I don't know what
> sort of level of work is involved.

I can't speak to this specifically, as I don't know the state of your
files, but yes, assume there will be work involved.

In a nutshell, for a single-source workflow, WWP makes more sense for
use with FM than does RH. And from an executive perspective, there is
a greater ROI with WWP and FM than there is with RH and FM.

Good luck.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT - EDIT AND REVIEW, REDEFINED
Accelerate the document lifecycle with full online discussions and unique feedback-management capabilities. Unlimited, efficient reviews for Word
and FrameMaker authors. Live, online demo:
http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l

Doc-To-Help 7.5 Professional: New version with new features, improved performance and reliability, plus much more! Download your free trial today at www.componentone.com/techwrlfeb.

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



Previous by Author: Re: FM Chapter numbering
Next by Author: Re: Job Offer
Previous by Thread: Re: single-sourcing/robohelp/framemaker
Next by Thread: Re: Robohelp question: is this possible without going into code?


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


Sponsored Ads