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: Front Page Fussy From:AlQuin <cbon -at- WXS -dot- NL> Date:Fri, 15 Jan 1999 23:07:04 +0100
On 12-01-1999 23:41 Tracy Boyington answered Peter Taylor:
>> Look at it this way: You paid around $75-$100 dollars to purchase a tool
>> that does approximately 75% of what you want it to.
>
>The problem is not that FrontPage only does 75% of the job. The problem
>is that FrontPage does 100% of the job, does about 25% of it wrong (more
>or less, depending on how picky you are) and *doesn't let you know it's
>been done wrong.* I consider that a failure for any product.
Why do we maintain a double standard for quality here, Peter, one for our
work and one for our tools: You would not accept a manual holding 25% of
inaccurate information (I presume...). But for a piece of software by
Microsoft you have a 'build-in' error factor.
What makes this name so particular to reserve a softer quality to it?
Any suggestions?
My two cents,
AlQuin Total Quality
* Technical communication is
writing in the customer's interest.
