Re: Recommended Applications

[Len Olszewski <saslpo -at- UNX -dot- SAS -dot- COM>]

Brad Mehlenbacher says this, in part, about the composition tool
discussion:

[...deletions...]

> However, if we intend to build a taxonomy of features
> that we require versus features that are nice to have versus features
> that, in the future, might be useful given the inevitable move to online
> documentation, then it seems to me we need to stop talking about software
> and start talking about users and the tasks they perform.

[...deletions...]

> Let's develop a taxonomy that focuses on use, not on technology.

This is an interesting point. I read somewhere once that when art
critics gather, they talk about visual balance, artistic styles,
compositional elements, and so on. But when painters gather, they talk
about where you can get the best deal on turpentine.

I think we're talking about the price of turpentine here. 8-)

I've stayed out of this discussion so far, largely because I use
compositional tools developed and maintained where I work. They are
markup code based, but they work pretty well, once you get the hang of
them. And, for now anyway, none of you can buy them. You'll all have the
opportunity to do that one of these days, so just hang on.

In the meantime, since I *don't* use any of the other tools people are
talking about, this discussion serves as a way for me to keep up with
what everybody is using out in the rest of the world. One of these days,
I may have to buy my own turpentine. 8-)

|Len Olszewski, Technical Writer |"Never give anything a name that you|
|saslpo -at- unx -dot- sas -dot- com|Cary, NC, USA|might have to eat." -Klingon Proverb|
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Opinions this ludicrous are mine. Reasonable opinions will cost you.|