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:A vote against perfect binding From:Jean Weber <jean_weber -at- COMPUSERVE -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 6 Mar 1997 21:43:17 -0500
As an infrequent user of many programs, I often need to work with the
manual open to help me. I absolutely HATE anything that won't open out flat
and stay that way. (I use a slantboard to prop up manuals and/or the
project I'm working on.) If a book flips shut on me (as most bound books
do), it's a major nuisance. I usually resort to breaking the spine, which
has the very undesirable side-effect of causing pages to fall out and get
lost.
I've not terribly keen on ring-binders (they are usually too big and
heavy), but any of the variations of spiral-bound or comb-bound makes me
very happy. True, labelling the non-spines so I can find them on the shelf
is a pest (nearly impossible), but I consider that a small inconvenience
that is far outweighed by the usability of the manual.
BTW, I have several clients whose main users are office workers, who don't
like thick manuals in either ring-binder or bound version. They feel
comfortable with thinner, spiral-bound manuals, and the software tends to
be in "modules," so I encourage the client to produce a series of thin
books, which can be hold-punched for storage in a ring binder if someone
wants to (and so the office manager or resident techie -- if there is one
-- can have a complete set readily available). Having several thin,
spiral-bound books may not look as "professional" to some, but it
dramatically improves the chances that people actually use them! And a
person may only need one or two of them in their work.
All of the above has nothing to do with ease of maintenance by the writers,
which is not a big issue with the software projects I work on. However, if
a big project is broken into smaller books, it also allows the writer to
re-issue one of the books without affecting the others (assuming you don't
have page-specific cross references in the others).
Jean Weber
Technical Writer, Editor and Publishing Consultant
Sydney, Australia
jean_weber -at- compuserve -dot- com
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
