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: Reply Form Time:1:16 PM
RE>>TECHWR-L Digest - 17 Jul 1994 Date:7/19/94
Steve Jong (Hello, Steve, long time no see) makes an interesting point in his
comment about standards:
"In the case of documentation quality, unless you have metrics,
you can't tell what's an improvement and what's merely a change,
but with metrics you can point to an innovation and say 'that's
what we all want to do,' and then you can change your standards."
This is really an obvious point. If, for example, you change your cereal (or
its packaging), you can measure whether it was a good idea - from its sales.
But what happens with documentation? Wherever I've worked, intelligent
comments about manuals were almost totally absent. Apart from fewer
technical support calls, how do you know when you've made a change that
results in improved manuals? Does Digital really have time to field test
their documentation? Does anybody?
Does anybody know whether their users read their books? And, for those who
do, how do you find out?
