<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Zero Search Time makes a great point
Review: ..... I found straightforward, good advice in the book. It is true that Schorer is blunt and I disagree with a couple of Schorer's subjective comments. I am not sure that Schorer has revolutionized technical writing as much as he has applied excellent fundamentals, and fluidly presented easily applied advice on how to improve typical technical documentation. There is a central point to the book, which "reader from Canada" apparently missed, and which IS pretty revolutionary: the industry lacks an objective criterion for measuring quality; Schorer suggests that we use lookup time. With a way to measure quality that directly benefits clients, all of the sudden the technical writers who write high-quality documentation would demand higher salaries and respect. If just a few writers adopted Schorer's method, I could start to look more kindly to the stack of user's manuals that sit unused, gathering dust in my bookcase. I read the book online, on Schorer's Web site, and then wanted a hard copy to write notes in. Take a look and judge for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Zero Search Time makes a great point
Review: ..... I found straightforward, good advice in the book. It is true that Schorer is blunt and I disagree with a couple of Schorer's subjective comments. I am not sure that Schorer has revolutionized technical writing as much as he has applied excellent fundamentals, and fluidly presented easily applied advice on how to improve typical technical documentation. There is a central point to the book, which "reader from Canada" apparently missed, and which IS pretty revolutionary: the industry lacks an objective criterion for measuring quality; Schorer suggests that we use lookup time. With a way to measure quality that directly benefits clients, all of the sudden the technical writers who write high-quality documentation would demand higher salaries and respect. If just a few writers adopted Schorer's method, I could start to look more kindly to the stack of user's manuals that sit unused, gathering dust in my bookcase. I read the book online, on Schorer's Web site, and then wanted a hard copy to write notes in. Take a look and judge for yourself.
Rating: 
Summary: A must-read for anyone serious about writing documentation.
Review: At last a short book that cuts through the BS and delivers what is really needed - a concise methodology for developing software documentation that makes it possible for users to be productive quickly and with a minimum of time invested in reading. Destined to become a classic in the industry (at least amongst those not wedded to the old approach of writing books about how to learn the software - as opposed to how to use the software). Highly recommended (and I don't say that often).
Rating: 
Summary: Overall, a disappointment.
Review: With so much information available today, the concept of "zero-search-time" documentation looked promising. The concepts introduced in this book are not new: task-oriented organization, alphabetic user guides and useful indexes. This book may even do some damage. For example, the section "Don't Waste Time Fussing With Style Guides" and the statement "Prose is good for one or two readings, bad thereafter." (page 56). What about: "Don't hesitate to personify programs..." (page 57). It is all too easy to make people believe that computers are human. Don't do it. Anthropomorphizing is not a good idea. A computer is and always will be an "it" and never an "I". And my favorite: "Most documenters are women trying to earn a living in a world that is alien to them, namely, the world of machines and, even worse, of mathematics, including the branch of mathematics known as computer programming". (page 86) Interesting. I wasn't aware of this concept. I thought that a technical writer was a person who was able to quickly understand new technologies and then translate the information into words that the intended audience could understand. Perhaps I just don't understand. Is documenters a word?
<< 1 >>
| 
