Re: 5.5 Documentation

[Dan Emory <danemory@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 09:31 PM 7/26/99 -0700, Jim Drew / Ciao! Publications wrote:
>>I've also heard that Adobe considered the 5.1 documentation too thick, which
>>in the mind of some pea-brain meant:
>>
>>1. It would be too intimidating to new users. Ergo, make the book thinner
>>(even though an entirely new subject area, HTML, had to be documented) so
>>the product wouldn't seem so complicated.
>>
>>2. Reducing the book size could save a few pennies in shipping costs--this
>>for a product that sells for between $900 and $2000 (FM+SGML).
>
>Actually, as much as anything, it probably meant that the docs were a bitch
>and a half to bind, perhaps even impossible in the "lay flat" style that
>Adobe switched to.  God knows, the binding on the FDK monster manuals
>breaks easy enough.
==================================================================
An even stupider reason than the ones I heard. Haven't they ever heard the
axiom "Don't try to put a square peg in a round hole?
==================================================================
>
>>Yet, it's my sense that Adobe still doesn't realize what they did.
>
>"Adobe" defined as whom, exactly?
===================================================================
That level of corporate mindlessness which made the decision.
===================================================================
The FrameMaker team realizes the situation
>fully.  The truth is that, short of creating an entirely separate group
>just for doing the Frame docs -- the Frame doc group members were either
>laid off or integrated into the Adobe group in the acquisition -- the docs
>have to be done as they are.
====================================================================
Have to be done as they are? What utter nonsense! The Frame 5.5
documentation could have been a minor rework of the 5.1 documentation, with
the addition of the HTML stuff. All the Adobe decision-makers had to do was
tell the group producing the 5.5 documentation to:

"Use what has already been done. The user base is already familiar with the
manual, and it's good. Don't alter it to fit any preconceived notion
about how a manual should be structured to fit the Adobe model."

What's more, your apologia doesn't explain why they also botched up the
on-line help.
======================================================================
Leveraging of skills and all that.  It's
>unfortunate, but it's how a company producing many different products
>has to work these days, if they are to maintain that minimum 20% annual
>growth.
======================================================================
Utter nonsense again! It wasn't leveraging of skills. It was simply the
hubris of the Publications Group, which believed they knew better than
the Frame people what a manual should be, even though they didn't understand
the product they were documenting, and how it is used. It's also interesting
to note that, by the time the 5.5 manual was written, Adobe had already
wiped out the entire Frame training organization, thus the manual should
have been even more comprehensive than the 5.1 documentation.

Furthermore, Adobe's documentation of most of its products is lousy, Acrobat
and Postscript Drivers being prime examples. There are more posts on the
subject of problems with PDF and Postscript than any other topic on the
Framers lists. 

Shlomo Perets (and others) are cleaning up by offering training and
documentation on subjects that should have been covered in the Acrobat
documentation. As Conrad Taylor has pointed out, PDF is rocket science, and
poorly documented rocket science at that. 
=====================================================================
>
>(Insert comments about *that* being the real problem.)
================================================================
It's not the "real" problem. Hubris is the problem.
============================================================
>
>>Maybe a few hundred enhancement requests on this subject, directed to
>>framemaker-feedback@adobe.com, would get Adobe's attention. It's at least
>>worth a try.
>>
>>Since I've been permanently banned from posting to BradFramers because of
>>posts like this one
>
>If you are an advocate of spamming a company to get your way, I can't blame
>people for having concerns about your postings.
=====================================================================
I'd hardly call it spamming. It's become quite apparent that Adobe ignores
most enhancement requests from individuals. They only listen when the big
license holders make demands. I was suggesting that, absent any input from
those guys, the only way to get Adobe's attention would be a large number of
cogent complaints from individual users about the documentation problem, in
the hope that this might help the FrameMaker team in proving to management
that something ought to be done about it.

Furthermore, it's not a matter of me getting my way. The problem, I think,
is  recognized by a large segment of the user base, as well as the
FrameMaker team at Adobe. The issue is how to get the attention of Adobe
managment. Everyone recognizes it's a problem except them. If you know of a
better way of getting their attention, why don't you propose it instead of
apologizing for Adobe's miscues, or criticizing me for making what I
believed to be a constructive suggestion that might help to solve the problem.
     ====================
     | Nullius in Verba |
     ====================
Dan Emory, Dan Emory & Associates
FrameMaker/FrameMaker+SGML Document Design & Database Publishing
Voice/Fax: 949-722-8971 E-Mail: danemory@primenet.com
10044 Adams Ave. #208, Huntington Beach, CA 92646
---Subscribe to the "Free Framers" list by sending a message to
   majordomo@omsys.com with "subscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.


** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **