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: in search for better tools From:"Gene Kim-Eng" <techwr -at- genek -dot- com> To:<techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:58:30 -0500
I don't know if my perception of the issue is the same as Robert's, but if I
install a program on my computer that I don't expect to be accessing the net and
the first time I launch it or use a particular feature (such as help) my
firewall pops up a notice that it's trying to access, I'm likely to hit the
button to block it. There goes any data that the person who programmed it to
send data was hoping to get, regardless of whether it's individual or
aggregated, the mere attempt to access without asking is what will trigger my
response. And if I'm in a particularly paranoid or grumpy mood the day that
happens, I may even hit the button that tells my firewall to phone home to its
maker and report the program that tried to access without asking me for
permission as malware, then remove it. If the program is trialware, there goes
a sale, and I don't know how many reports like this a program has to trigger
before it goes on the firewall maker's list of PUPs.
Both of these outcomes could be avoided if the bleeping program just told me on
install that its help was going to send data back to its maker and let me click
a button that said "ok, go ahead," or "no way." I suppose everyone who produces
software just has to decide how much of an issue this is for them.
> Perhaps we are not understanding because you're not clearly explaining what
> your issues are? Sometimes something that's really clear in my head doesn't
> get explained outside my head very well.
>
>>From what I understand from you, you think the issue is that a Flare created
> help system can enabled so that if and only if there is a Feedback server
> configured, the Flare created help can report blinded aggregate activity?
>
> Am I understanding you correctly?
Are you looking for one documentation tool that does it all? Author,
build, test, and publish your Help files with just one easy-to-use tool.
Try the latest Doc-To-Help 2009 v3 risk-free for 30-days at: http://www.doctohelp.com/
Help & Manual 5: The all-in-one help authoring tool. True single- sourcing --
generate 8 different formats and as many different versions as you need
from just one project. Fast and intuitive. http://www.helpandmanual.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-