Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Open Source
Why technical writers aren't using FOSS
By Bruce Byfield
on
April 13, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
I once thought that technical writers would be one of the next groups to adopt free and open source software (FOSS). I reasoned that they were advanced computer users, and might absorb an interest through their daily interactions with developers. However, after discussing FOSS on the Techwr-l mailing list a few months ago, I realized I was wrong. A handful are using FOSS professionally, and a few were inspired by the discussion to try it. Yet most showed only mild interest. Some echoed myths that everyone in the FOSS community has heard before about lack of support or quality. The majority, though, showed a mixture of pragmatism, a clinging to the familiar, and a double-standard that, taken together shows just how large a gap still separates the FOSS community from many of those it might immediately benefit.
These reactions are all evident in three comments by long-time members of the mailing list. The first comes from Gene Kim-Eng, a technical writer of many years' standing. Kim-Eng attributed his disinclination to use FOSS to his perception that FOSS tended to add features according to programmers' interests, rather than end-users' needs, and to try to do too many things. He thought proprietary software had the same tendency, and needed "someone with a clear vision to tell them what to do." Rather than FOSS or proprietary software, he prefers shareware, "where often an entire program is the result of one person's desire and determination to create something that will do one thing well."
The second comment comes from John Posada, a senior technical writer from New York. Posada's complaint is that installing FOSS was too complex when he had a simple, practical goal in mind. He used the example of the GIMP for Windows. Posada observes that, in order to install, he had to move from the main GIMP site to another one, read a FAQ, and download and install both the GIMP for Windows and GTK+2. By the time he had done all these things, he facetiously says, he had almost "forgotten" his main goal. "Open source is for developers," he concluded from this example. "I, for one, only want to resize an image and change it from TIF to PNG."
The third comment was made by Bonnie Granat, an experienced editor in New England. Asked by a client to use OpenOffice.org (OOo), Granat was enthusiastic at first. However, by the time I was asking questions, she had decided that OOo Writer was inferior to Microsoft Word in functionality, and that "the little differences are tiresome." Much the same sentiments were voiced by Sue Gallagher, who has given seminars about object-oriented programming to other writers. "Some of the functionality I rely on in Word just isn't there," Gallagher said. Similarly, Posada vaguely remembers trying OpenOffice.org. "[It] didn't do much for me," he says. "And I think it caused something else on my machine to become unstable ... I don't remember what it was."
All these comments are easy to debunk. Many are based on misunderstandings, a lack of context, and less than complete knowledge.
However, what is more interesting about the comments is the attitudes they reveal. To start with, none show any interest in the philosophies of either free software or open source. Most had no understanding of them. Encouraged to ask questions, those who accepted the invitation asked the most basic of questions, such as what incentive developers would have if they didn't get paid. A few attempted to debunk FOSS based on secondhand knowledge. Even more disavowed any interest in the philosophies, claiming that they were only interested in practical results. Posada spoke for many when he responded to my question about the role of philosophies by saying, "I don't care about philosophy.... I'm more interested in the speed that I can get my documentation written."
Another point that may be difficult for members of the FOSS communities to understand is that, although tech writers often keep typically long corporate hours and may work alongside FOSS programmers, few express any inclination to learn more about computing or to gain more control over how they spend most of their days. In retrospect, that is perhaps unsurprising, since, despite the hyphen in their job description, two-thirds of tech writers see themselves as offering skill in putting words together rather than expert knowledge. But, at any rate, many assume that, if they were to explore FOSS, they would have to do so on their own time. A typical response came from Wanda Phillips, who, although feeling vaguely that she should learn more about FOSS, said, "Since I don't really have room to experiment, or even really practice my craft, at work, any experimentation would be done at home, in my unpaid hours. Frankly, these days, given a choice between experimenting with a new tech tool or process and, let's say, walking my dog.... oh, yeah, walking the dog wins!" Even though they regularly curse the long-outstanding bugs in proprietary software such as Word, they would rather keep using it because they are familiar with it than learn something new, no matter how powerful it might be.
Most important of all, many tech writers are more tolerant of the shortcomings of proprietary software than of FOSS. Kim-Eng sees a similar trend in both FOSS and proprietary software, yet while it keeps him from using FOSS, it does not discourage him from using proprietary software. In the same way, few experienced technical writers would expect to learn FrameMaker overnight, but, when they have trouble finding a feature in OpenOffice.org Writer, they jump to the conclusion that it isn't there -- although it almost always is, unless it's online collaboration tools. Moreover, a few perceived flaws in Writer or perhaps a beta release can cause them to reject it, although they will go to great lengths to find workarounds for problems in Word. For many tech writers, the unspoken assumption is still that FOSS is inferior to proprietary software. As a result, they do not approach it with anything like the same willingness to learn.
Some of the responses to my questions raised legitimate concerns. A few pointed out missing gaps in functionality, such as the lack of graphical WinHelp editors. Others, referring to the relatively low status of tech writers in their companies, suggested that advocating FOSS would be too risky. A few with some knowledge of FOSS pointed out that the back end software at their company was already built from FOSS, and one who had reason to know suggested that the cliquishness of many projects made becoming involved in FOSS uninviting. Yet such informed comments were the exception, not the rule. What I chiefly noticed was how little knowledge about FOSS had reached the average tech writer. And if such relatively expert computer users knew so little, what chance can there be of FOSS ideals motivating the everyday user? If the responses I received were typical, the day that a FOSS desktop is on every computer may be farther away than we think.
Bruce Byfield is a course designer and instructor, and a computer journalist who writes regularly for NewsForge, Linux.com and IT Manager's Journal. He has worked as a tech writer, but hopes never to do so again.
Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist who writes regularly for Linux.com.
Comments
on Why technical writers aren't using FOSSNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Kinda like teenagers who try to be "different" with everybody else?!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
Typically FOSS is fairly responsive and tries to listen to user feedback but a lot of the changes and weeding through responses can take a long time depending on how many people are working with the project.
Typically FOSS is fairly responsive and tries to listen to user feedback but a lot of the changes and weeding through responses can take a long time depending on how many people are working with the project.
I have to agree. And you can add that many technical writers have devoted much time and energy into learning how to use the proprietary tools. You just don't toss aside an investment like that lightly.
... and then, when copying Windows (or Mac OS), FOSS get accused of "not being innovative" and "stealing idea" from proprietary software.
If you opened a chinese restaurant in Nashville TN. Would you force everyone to eat with chopsticks, and stab everyone who resists in the neck with them? Or would you rather keep the cash register humming by giving your customers the knifes and forks they're accustomed to.
As far as inovation, once something becomes the expected standard, like the knife and fork for eating, forcing what you believe to be inovative on people is a very bad, and ill conceived notion.
You could probably design an inovative, and highly efficient method for feeding people by using a modified toilet plunger. But broad acceptance beyond the trendy first adopter types, and masochists, is highly unlikely.
The logical path to follow when applying these analogies to FOSS, is to just give the people what they want. A simple logical exercise, isn't it?
As far as inovation, once something becomes the expected standard, like the knife and fork for eating, forcing what you believe to be inovative on people is a very bad, and ill conceived notion.
You could probably design an inovative, and highly efficient method for feeding people by using a modified toilet plunger. But broad acceptance beyond the trendy first adopter types, and masochists, is highly unlikely.
The logical path to follow when applying these analogies to FOSS, is to just give the people what they want. A simple logical exercise, isn't it?
Ah, but the difference is that I can be just as productive with a knife and a fork as the most competent chopstick wielder.
Yet anyone who was worked as a technical writer for any length of time is also aware of the constant need to learn new tools. The need varies with the career path, of course, with consultants having to be more flexible than captive writers who stay at a single company. But it's always there.
- Bruce Byfield
- Bruce Byfield
It's true that a great number of people don't switch to FOSS because of familiarity issues. It is NOT true that FOSS should try to imitate such software. If the interface is truly better than MS's (for example) but still different, should it really be tossed aside to make way for a more familiar, not as useful interface? I don't think so.
This of course raises the question of how to convert those who complain of familiarity issues. The only ways for one to switch is 1. cold turkey (not always the best for those of little time) and 2. slowly transition by starting out using more familiar interfaces. So I sort of agree with you.
This of course raises the question of how to convert those who complain of familiarity issues. The only ways for one to switch is 1. cold turkey (not always the best for those of little time) and 2. slowly transition by starting out using more familiar interfaces. So I sort of agree with you.
You assume that we want people to move to FOSS. I for one don't care if everyone and their dog uses the same software I do or not. What I care about is having software that works for what I need.
The WORST thing that's happened to FOSS in recent years is the deranged group of people that are trying to make it into a weird Windows/MacOS hybrid clone rather than building on long standing, and very functional, design traditions that make FOSS programs great.
KDE and Gnome are prime examples of this. Rather than improve on the desktop experience they dump down the interfaces and try to look like Windows and OS X. Great, so it's now easier for newbies to work but harder for everyone that actually uses these systems day after day.
OpenOffice is a horrible mess because it tries to be Microsoft Office and does such a good job that it even copies the general complexity of the MS Office UI and the trend towards being slow, bloated, and buggy.
Whereas programs that do succeed tend to be built on the traditions from Unix and FOSS. Firefox would be an example here. It's a lightweight program broken down into sepperate bits that are strung together. It's small, easy to use, and extremely flexible - all reasons it's been such a hit. Compare that to the Mozilla Suite that, while trying to be closer to the Unix way than most Windows software, still was more of a Windows-style app that was bigger, more bloated, and less flexible.
Developers need to have the nerve to ignore the user. Create something really good that does what you need. It may take longer for your program to become widely adopted but when it does it'll be a solid program people admire and keep using. Let extra features be added by the community that forms around your program but make every effort to keep those extras as just that - extras. Use extensions, plugins, or some similar method to allow these optionals to be installed rather than forcing them on all your users.
The end-user doesn't know what they want or need. All they can do is complain. Listen to their complaints and look for real issues that need fixed but stick to your guns and just write damn good software.
Be different when there is a good reason to be different. Follow the norm otherwise. Make something as easy to use as is possible but no easier. I don't know how many painful hours I've spent trying to work around the stupid 'easy' interfaces programs have been given just to do something that would have taken minutes with a 'harder' interface.
The WORST thing that's happened to FOSS in recent years is the deranged group of people that are trying to make it into a weird Windows/MacOS hybrid clone rather than building on long standing, and very functional, design traditions that make FOSS programs great.
KDE and Gnome are prime examples of this. Rather than improve on the desktop experience they dump down the interfaces and try to look like Windows and OS X. Great, so it's now easier for newbies to work but harder for everyone that actually uses these systems day after day.
OpenOffice is a horrible mess because it tries to be Microsoft Office and does such a good job that it even copies the general complexity of the MS Office UI and the trend towards being slow, bloated, and buggy.
Whereas programs that do succeed tend to be built on the traditions from Unix and FOSS. Firefox would be an example here. It's a lightweight program broken down into sepperate bits that are strung together. It's small, easy to use, and extremely flexible - all reasons it's been such a hit. Compare that to the Mozilla Suite that, while trying to be closer to the Unix way than most Windows software, still was more of a Windows-style app that was bigger, more bloated, and less flexible.
Developers need to have the nerve to ignore the user. Create something really good that does what you need. It may take longer for your program to become widely adopted but when it does it'll be a solid program people admire and keep using. Let extra features be added by the community that forms around your program but make every effort to keep those extras as just that - extras. Use extensions, plugins, or some similar method to allow these optionals to be installed rather than forcing them on all your users.
The end-user doesn't know what they want or need. All they can do is complain. Listen to their complaints and look for real issues that need fixed but stick to your guns and just write damn good software.
Be different when there is a good reason to be different. Follow the norm otherwise. Make something as easy to use as is possible but no easier. I don't know how many painful hours I've spent trying to work around the stupid 'easy' interfaces programs have been given just to do something that would have taken minutes with a 'harder' interface.
This may go beyond the FOSS plug-ins debate supporting this dialogue, but here goes.
Desktops and Apps are ever-changing. And FOSS tools will at least apply a chess-like strategy in analyzing the patterns and poor design of one or proprietary tools marketed to tech writers that are pretty much outdated once they hit the market -- and often gather dust when the user realizes that it won't do their job for them.
FOSS tools also work toward true solutions that actually solve problems while building on its established foundation. Which may explain their somewhat crude appearance and Command-line interface (as things change either inside or outside of its scope), which I believe is the driving force behind the familiarity argument. (What, no Windows?)
Meanwhile, the software behemoths continue writing more lines of code to justify the worth of their bloated, overpriced -- yet well-supported -- product. And supply the costly upgrades to patch the holes.
In defense of the unwashed tech writer masses, there are a lot of FOSS tools and combinations with many specific goals and objectives. Writers need to go beyond the interview a techie for the page of text they need to produce today and partner-up with them to help sort out the what's and the how to's of FOSS offerings. Once a system is analyzed and fortified, and the info. sources are reconciled, a script-driven GUI can run some of the redundant Command-line strings to produce the desired output using all those oh, so familiar buttons, checkboxes, drop-downs.
Yes, it takes time, but so does the mundane copy-paste, search-and-replace, yadda-yadda.
Desktops and Apps are ever-changing. And FOSS tools will at least apply a chess-like strategy in analyzing the patterns and poor design of one or proprietary tools marketed to tech writers that are pretty much outdated once they hit the market -- and often gather dust when the user realizes that it won't do their job for them.
FOSS tools also work toward true solutions that actually solve problems while building on its established foundation. Which may explain their somewhat crude appearance and Command-line interface (as things change either inside or outside of its scope), which I believe is the driving force behind the familiarity argument. (What, no Windows?)
Meanwhile, the software behemoths continue writing more lines of code to justify the worth of their bloated, overpriced -- yet well-supported -- product. And supply the costly upgrades to patch the holes.
In defense of the unwashed tech writer masses, there are a lot of FOSS tools and combinations with many specific goals and objectives. Writers need to go beyond the interview a techie for the page of text they need to produce today and partner-up with them to help sort out the what's and the how to's of FOSS offerings. Once a system is analyzed and fortified, and the info. sources are reconciled, a script-driven GUI can run some of the redundant Command-line strings to produce the desired output using all those oh, so familiar buttons, checkboxes, drop-downs.
Yes, it takes time, but so does the mundane copy-paste, search-and-replace, yadda-yadda.
[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/painrelief<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/painrelief<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]
<tt>[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/painrelief<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.back.painreliefnetwork.net/lowbac<nobr>k<wbr></nobr> pain.htm] Low back pain [/URL]
[URL=http://blog.gala.net/uploads/painreliefback/<nobr>b<wbr></nobr> ackpainrelief.htm] Back pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.weblog.ro/usercontent/13155/profi<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> es/kneepainrelief.htm] Knee pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Pain-R<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> lief.html] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.sitefights.com/community/scifi/pa<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> nrelief/painreliefpreved.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Medica<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ion-Pain-Relief.html] Medication pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Natura<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> -Pain-Relief.html] Natural pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.c<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> m] Pain relief [/URL]
</tt>
[URL=http://www.back.painreliefnetwork.net/lowbac<nobr>k<wbr></nobr> pain.htm] Low back pain [/URL]
[URL=http://blog.gala.net/uploads/painreliefback/<nobr>b<wbr></nobr> ackpainrelief.htm] Back pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.weblog.ro/usercontent/13155/profi<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> es/kneepainrelief.htm] Knee pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Pain-R<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> lief.html] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.sitefights.com/community/scifi/pa<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> nrelief/painreliefpreved.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Medica<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ion-Pain-Relief.html] Medication pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Natura<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> -Pain-Relief.html] Natural pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.c<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> m] Pain relief [/URL]
</tt>
Is the term "technical writer" here given a narrow definition or a broad one? Where does the TeX/LaTeX user community fit into this picture? Especially considering that much of what is written using TeX and LaTeX is technical in nature?
In this context, a technical writer is someone who writes documentatation -- printed manuals and online help -- for a piece of software or hardware. This documentation will be read by users of the application, administrators, and maybe even developers.
OK. So this seems to be a particular definition. Using this definition, I suppose that a large proportion of technical writers are writing documentation for proprietary software which runs on Windows, and a large proportion of these people are using vendor-supplied Windows-based resources to do this. What incentive would such Microsoft-saturated people have to use FOSS?
To me, it is almost like reading an article called "Why Microsoft marketing executives aren't using FOSS on their Microsoft-supplied laptops".
To me, it is almost like reading an article called "Why Microsoft marketing executives aren't using FOSS on their Microsoft-supplied laptops".
Good point. In fact, a lot of technical writers author documentation for UNIX and Web based apps, too -- often along side Windows applications.
The problem facing FOSS technical writing tools is mindshare. For example, FrameMaker's been the de-facto standard for authoring for a long time; as has RoboHelp. There is a lot of support for and knowledge about these tools out there. Writers (generally) know these tools, accept them, and expect to use them.
Not all technical writers are fearful of change, lack technical or computer skills, or just want to stick to Windows. But they need good incentives to switch from what they (and most people in their industry) are using.
Compare this situation to a development shop that uses Visual Studio (or another closed source IDE). It would probably be difficult to get those developers to switch to Eclipse.
A "technical writer" is generally understood to be someone who writes documentation for products, which the writer had no real part in creating, as his/her main way of earning a living. Microsoft employs technical writers to write the manuals for MS Word, Excel, etc.
Where does the TeX/LaTeX user community fit into this picture?
It doesn't. TeX/LaTeX is widely used in the academic world; researchers use it to write their books and papers. It's also used in the FOSS community for documentation, but the people who use it are mostly programmers documenting their own programs. I don't know of anyone using TeX/LaTeX whose sole job is writing documents, although presumably there are some.
Technical writers as a good model of everyday user
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2006 09:22 PM
It would seem that technical writers behave very much as everyday users: for them computing is strictly a means to an end, and fail to see the more profound implications of how you do your computing on society.
Many developers are not far from that situation either. They will do the lowest amount of effort of self-education to be able to perform what is requested in their job.
For these kind of people hoping to recruit them as FOSS users based on philosophy is pointless. They will only use FOSS tools if it is very obvious that they will receive an immediate benefit (see firefox), or if they are trained to use such apps.
So the only way to succeed among such a user base is:
- learn and emulate firefox
- target schools, universities, and decision makers on the benefits of FOSS.
The rest of the people are sheep. They will not take the initiative of self-training to FOSS, but they will also just learn it if forced by their employers/teachers, whatever.
Many developers are not far from that situation either. They will do the lowest amount of effort of self-education to be able to perform what is requested in their job.
For these kind of people hoping to recruit them as FOSS users based on philosophy is pointless. They will only use FOSS tools if it is very obvious that they will receive an immediate benefit (see firefox), or if they are trained to use such apps.
So the only way to succeed among such a user base is:
- learn and emulate firefox
- target schools, universities, and decision makers on the benefits of FOSS.
The rest of the people are sheep. They will not take the initiative of self-training to FOSS, but they will also just learn it if forced by their employers/teachers, whatever.
before you insult people, think.
John Posada's example of the gimp is valid.
It was hard for me to find the win32 port of the Gimp last time I installed it 2 years ago.
It is easier now, but users should not be expected to check back every few months.
Bonnie Granat comment that "the little differences are tiresome." Is true. She does not want to learn a new way, unless she has to, there is nothing wrong with that.
example: I use Kate cause its is simple to use, and its interface is windows like.
I am sure emacs or vi would do lots for me, if I knew how to use them, but I don't, and I won't in the near future.
you then say :
"All these comments are easy to debunk."
then you don't debunk them.
you remind me of my 1st year Algebra Prof.
"Trivialy we obtain<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "
bah... I'm done with you now
John Posada's example of the gimp is valid.
It was hard for me to find the win32 port of the Gimp last time I installed it 2 years ago.
It is easier now, but users should not be expected to check back every few months.
Bonnie Granat comment that "the little differences are tiresome." Is true. She does not want to learn a new way, unless she has to, there is nothing wrong with that.
example: I use Kate cause its is simple to use, and its interface is windows like.
I am sure emacs or vi would do lots for me, if I knew how to use them, but I don't, and I won't in the near future.
you then say :
"All these comments are easy to debunk."
then you don't debunk them.
you remind me of my 1st year Algebra Prof.
"Trivialy we obtain<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "
bah... I'm done with you now
"before you insult people, think. John Posada's example of the gimp is valid. It was hard for me to find the win32 port of the Gimp last time I installed it 2 years ago."
And it takes less time to go the store, buy photoshop, go back home, and then install it? The GIMP folks probably should make the Windows version more easily accessible, but the problem here is a typical double standard. The user complains that it takes too long to get the OSS application but they don't mind the fact that it actually takes longer to go out and get a proprietary application.
"I use Kate cause its is simple to use, and its interface is windows like. I am sure emacs or vi would do lots for me, if I knew how to use them, but I don't, and I won't in the near future."
The amount of time you will save by using vim or emacs is significantly greater than the amount of time it will take you to learn to use one of them. You are only cheating yourself by using less capable tools. A Microsoft Office user that is resisting OpenOffice simply because it requires them to relearn some things is making a similar mistake. The cost of learning it (the amount of money lost by using time for learning the program rather than working) will probably be made up in the long run in cost savings from not having to buy copies of Microsoft Office.
And it takes less time to go the store, buy photoshop, go back home, and then install it? The GIMP folks probably should make the Windows version more easily accessible, but the problem here is a typical double standard. The user complains that it takes too long to get the OSS application but they don't mind the fact that it actually takes longer to go out and get a proprietary application.
"I use Kate cause its is simple to use, and its interface is windows like. I am sure emacs or vi would do lots for me, if I knew how to use them, but I don't, and I won't in the near future."
The amount of time you will save by using vim or emacs is significantly greater than the amount of time it will take you to learn to use one of them. You are only cheating yourself by using less capable tools. A Microsoft Office user that is resisting OpenOffice simply because it requires them to relearn some things is making a similar mistake. The cost of learning it (the amount of money lost by using time for learning the program rather than working) will probably be made up in the long run in cost savings from not having to buy copies of Microsoft Office.
And it takes less time to go the store, buy photoshop, go back home, and then install it? The GIMP folks probably should make the Windows version more easily accessible, but the problem here is a typical double standard. The user complains that it takes too long to get the OSS application but they don't mind the fact that it actually takes longer to go out and get a proprietary application.
Um, who goes out to buy software in this age of web-based shopping? You get the media delivered to your office, spend a coffee break waiting for the installer to finish, and then go to work using it.
The cost of learning it (the amount of money lost by using time for learning the program rather than working) will probably be made up in the long run in cost savings from not having to buy copies of Microsoft Office.
Microsoft Office is not that expensive compared to labor and training costs, unless you are paying your writers something close to minimum wage.
Um, who goes out to buy software in this age of web-based shopping? You get the media delivered to your office, spend a coffee break waiting for the installer to finish, and then go to work using it.
The cost of learning it (the amount of money lost by using time for learning the program rather than working) will probably be made up in the long run in cost savings from not having to buy copies of Microsoft Office.
Microsoft Office is not that expensive compared to labor and training costs, unless you are paying your writers something close to minimum wage.
What kind of crack are you smoking? See, it isn't nice being dissed, is it? Seriously, I've never had to "go the store" (sic) to buy software for work. My employer purchases it. The computer support people install it. I sit down and use it. I'll bet responses from technical writers would be different in companies where OpenOffice.org and GIMP were the standard applications supported by the IT department.
Oh, and both Emacs and Vi are huge sucking time sinks. Ever tried to use help in Emacs? I'd rather use a modern editor or IDE.
Oh, and both Emacs and Vi are huge sucking time sinks. Ever tried to use help in Emacs? I'd rather use a modern editor or IDE.
I don't know when Posada tried to install GIMP but it was a breeze when I did so around 3/31/2006. I scratched my head at the DL choices, DL'd and installed the GIMP windows installer, ran it... It said I needed to install gtk.. I said "Ah hah" DL'ed that installer and I was done. This really wasn't a big deal at all.
I don't think Posada is being dissed by the author although now that *you* bring it up, my honest reaction was "Wow, Posada's a dork if installing GIMP was a big stretch."
But I think Byfield hits the nail on the head... if you read the article.. I love the fact that I can so readily stand on the shoulders of giants and play with all their cool toys (like GIMP) that it never occurs to me to be offended that I have to invest 180 extra seconds installing a second package. Probably Posada is less a dork than just has really, really different values.
And, in fact, sitting back I guess I'm not really surprised that a bunch of professional English majors are nearly computer illiterate.
I don't think Posada is being dissed by the author although now that *you* bring it up, my honest reaction was "Wow, Posada's a dork if installing GIMP was a big stretch."
But I think Byfield hits the nail on the head... if you read the article.. I love the fact that I can so readily stand on the shoulders of giants and play with all their cool toys (like GIMP) that it never occurs to me to be offended that I have to invest 180 extra seconds installing a second package. Probably Posada is less a dork than just has really, really different values.
And, in fact, sitting back I guess I'm not really surprised that a bunch of professional English majors are nearly computer illiterate.
John has been a mainstay of the Techwr-l writing lists for many years, and I hope that what I was doing was reporting his reaction accurately, not dissing him.
If I somehow failed, I'm sure that he will tear a strip off me by himself.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
If I somehow failed, I'm sure that he will tear a strip off me by himself.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
I've been using GIMP on Linux and Windows and have never had a problem installing it. It's hardly a Gimp issue that installing software in Windows is a pain because you need to download and install the needed required packages before you can install the program itself. It's no worse doing this for Gimp than for any of the other millions of Windows programs that require this. At least Gimp is nice enough to put the packages all on one page so you can see that you need to install them and you don't have to search around for them. When Photoshop is easier to install on Linux than Gimp is on Windows then you can talk to me about Gimp being hard to install.
There is no reason emacs or vi is a required part of using FOSS. I've been using and developing FOSS for more than ten years and I've almost never used either emacs or vi. Usually I actually use nano (and before that pico) as I find it a comfortable level of user-friendliness and low overhead. Never has this been an issue with me using FOSS. I could just as easily use a fully graphical editor if I didn't mind how bloated they were. Again it'd not be an issue. Maybe they aren't Microsoft Word exactly but then if you want Microsoft Word I suggest you use Microsoft Word as is only sensible.
Don't be absurd that people don't have to learn new ways to do things in non-FOSS programs all the time. Proprietary software constantly wants to force you to upgrade and learn new things so that they can sell you new software, training, and support. FOSS programs can look and behave the same for decades. Next time you have to relearn your good ole Windows programs again why not spend that energy learning FOSS with the knowledge that you won't have to upgrade and relearn your software constantly.
If you're happy with what you have then keep using it. If you want something better then you need to realize that it might require a little work on your part. There is little benefit to me for having everyone else change to using the same tools I use.
There is no reason emacs or vi is a required part of using FOSS. I've been using and developing FOSS for more than ten years and I've almost never used either emacs or vi. Usually I actually use nano (and before that pico) as I find it a comfortable level of user-friendliness and low overhead. Never has this been an issue with me using FOSS. I could just as easily use a fully graphical editor if I didn't mind how bloated they were. Again it'd not be an issue. Maybe they aren't Microsoft Word exactly but then if you want Microsoft Word I suggest you use Microsoft Word as is only sensible.
Don't be absurd that people don't have to learn new ways to do things in non-FOSS programs all the time. Proprietary software constantly wants to force you to upgrade and learn new things so that they can sell you new software, training, and support. FOSS programs can look and behave the same for decades. Next time you have to relearn your good ole Windows programs again why not spend that energy learning FOSS with the knowledge that you won't have to upgrade and relearn your software constantly.
If you're happy with what you have then keep using it. If you want something better then you need to realize that it might require a little work on your part. There is little benefit to me for having everyone else change to using the same tools I use.
For many tech writers, the unspoken assumption is still that FOSS is inferior to proprietary software. As a result, they do not approach it with anything like the same willingness to learn.
I'd love to use OpenOffice.org for most of my writing projects. However, when I'm working on a contract demanding delivery and edits using MSWord format, I ran into some very real problems:
* <a href="http://www.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi?issue_status=NEW&issue_status=STARTED&issue_status=REOPENED&email1=&emailtype1=exact&emailassigned_to1=1&email2=&emailtype2=exact&emailreporter2=1&issueidtype=include&issue_id=&changedin=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&short_desc=nested+tables&short_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&issue_file_loc=&issue_file_loc_type=substring&status_whiteboard=&status_whiteboard_type=substring&keywords=&keywords_type=anytokens&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&Submit+query=Submit+query" title="openoffice.org">data in nested tables</a openoffice.org> vanishing.
lack of support for many <a href="http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/" title="openoffice.org">bibliography standards</a openoffice.org>
Personally, I use OO.org or LaTeX for just about everything where I can deliver pdf. But the file compatibility issue is a big one in mixed office environments.
I'd love to use OpenOffice.org for most of my writing projects. However, when I'm working on a contract demanding delivery and edits using MSWord format, I ran into some very real problems:
* <a href="http://www.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi?issue_status=NEW&issue_status=STARTED&issue_status=REOPENED&email1=&emailtype1=exact&emailassigned_to1=1&email2=&emailtype2=exact&emailreporter2=1&issueidtype=include&issue_id=&changedin=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&short_desc=nested+tables&short_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&issue_file_loc=&issue_file_loc_type=substring&status_whiteboard=&status_whiteboard_type=substring&keywords=&keywords_type=anytokens&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&Submit+query=Submit+query" title="openoffice.org">data in nested tables</a openoffice.org> vanishing.
lack of support for many <a href="http://bibliographic.openoffice.org/" title="openoffice.org">bibliography standards</a openoffice.org>
Personally, I use OO.org or LaTeX for just about everything where I can deliver pdf. But the file compatibility issue is a big one in mixed office environments.
This deals more with the OpenDocument discussion in my opinion.
Openoffice.org sometimes writes bad Word documents. Word can't write OpenOffice.org documents at all. Who's inferior?
Openoffice.org sometimes writes bad Word documents. Word can't write OpenOffice.org documents at all. Who's inferior?
Note that I posted links to development projects within the OpenOffice.org community that acknowledge these defects.
Here is the problem, right here, right now, this month you have competing softare products without full compatibility between them. Perhaps OpenOffice.org will get the ability to import nested tables and a bibliographic database that meets the needs of a broader population of writers sometime this decade. Perhaps Microsoft and other holdout vendors will adopt opendocument this decade.
Vaporware that may or may not be ready this decade, doesn't help companies and contractors deliver on contracts this month. My antipathy for MSWord comes from a profound familiarity with it. But when I have contracts and collaborators delivering MSWord documents, I can't gamble on file compatibility problems that result in loss of data.
Note that I posted links to development projects within the OpenOffice.org community that acknowledge these defects.
Here is the problem, right here, right now, this month you have competing softare products without full compatibility between them. Perhaps OpenOffice.org will get the ability to import nested tables and a bibliographic database that meets the needs of a broader population of writers sometime this decade. Perhaps Microsoft and other holdout vendors will adopt opendocument this decade.
Vaporware that may or may not be ready this decade, doesn't help companies and contractors deliver on contracts this month. My antipathy for MSWord comes from a profound familiarity with it. But when I have contracts and collaborators delivering MSWord documents, I can't gamble on file compatibility problems that result in loss of data.
Add to that, the outline function in MS-Office makes structuring of text much easier. Yes I know there is a similar function in OOo Navigator but usingit requires more mousing around.
OO.o has problems because it tries to clone Microsoft Office rather than doing it's own thing. It doesn't offer a lot over M$ Office, lacks some things M$ Office does have, and is about as difficult to use and as bloated and buggy as M$ Office. The only real benefits are it's price (free), it's platform independant, and it's support for open document standards.
Because it tries to look and act like a M$ Office clone people expect it to look and act like M$ Office. Every little thing it doesn't do like M$ Office just annoys people who are used to M$ Office. Let that be a lessen to developers to innovate rather than cloning.
Because it tries to look and act like a M$ Office clone people expect it to look and act like M$ Office. Every little thing it doesn't do like M$ Office just annoys people who are used to M$ Office. Let that be a lessen to developers to innovate rather than cloning.
There is probably a lot more money to be made
writing about expensive proprietary products
than free ones.
One would tend to use what they write about.
Compare bottled water with tap water.
writing about expensive proprietary products
than free ones.
One would tend to use what they write about.
Compare bottled water with tap water.
Most important of all, many tech writers are more tolerant of the shortcomings of proprietary software than of FOSS. Kim-Eng sees a similar trend in both FOSS and proprietary software, yet while it keeps him from using FOSS, it does not discourage him from using proprietary software. In the same way, few experienced technical writers would expect to learn FrameMaker overnight, but, when they have trouble finding a feature in OpenOffice.org Writer, they jump to the conclusion that it isn't there -- although it almost always is, unless it's online collaboration tools. Moreover, a few perceived flaws in Writer or perhaps a beta release can cause them to reject it, although they will go to great lengths to find workarounds for problems in Word. For many tech writers, the unspoken assumption is still that FOSS is inferior to proprietary software. As a result, they do not approach it with anything like the same willingness to learn.
So you're basically telling us that technical writers are a bunch of morons that, given two software packages with the same functionalities and bugs, choose the one that they have to pay hard cash instead of the free one.
If this is true, FOSS can't win, but it is well known that "Against stupidity, the very Gods themselves contend in vain".
So you're basically telling us that technical writers are a bunch of morons that, given two software packages with the same functionalities and bugs, choose the one that they have to pay hard cash instead of the free one.
If this is true, FOSS can't win, but it is well known that "Against stupidity, the very Gods themselves contend in vain".
"the little differences are tiresome" is "easy to debunk?"
Sounds like someone's been drinking too much kool-aid...
"Easy to debunk" partly means "I'm not going to go into all that right now."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
However, if you insist: Who expects any piece of software to be identical to another, even in the same category? That's like complaining that you can't get a hamburger while on safari in Africa, or that some of the people in Germany don't speak English. When you use a lot of different software, as many technical-writers do, you should quickly learn not to worry about the small differences.
However, if you insist: Who expects any piece of software to be identical to another, even in the same category? That's like complaining that you can't get a hamburger while on safari in Africa, or that some of the people in Germany don't speak English. When you use a lot of different software, as many technical-writers do, you should quickly learn not to worry about the small differences.
<tt>[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.c<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> m] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/pa<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> nrelief.htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]</tt>
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.c<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> m] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/pa<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> nrelief.htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]</tt>
Straight from the Microsoft stock-holder's mouth. The tip-off is the copy-pasted hymn about how hard Gimp is to use on Windows. Because. you. need. to. download. TWOOOOO. whole. files.
Dismissed. Go back to Slashdot, flameboys!
Dismissed. Go back to Slashdot, flameboys!
I noticed in the article that the author made reference to proprietary software vs shareware. It was unclear to me whether he or the technical writers referred to in the article were confused about the meanings of these terms, but I will try to clarify them nontheless.
Proprietary software is released under a restrictive license, generally without source code. Most shareware falls into this category.
Shareware is simply try-before-you-buy proprietary software.
Proprietary software is released under a restrictive license, generally without source code. Most shareware falls into this category.
Shareware is simply try-before-you-buy proprietary software.
Since we are in correction mode.
All software is proprietary. It is all property and owned by someone, even GPLed software is proprietary (property), otherwise people wouldn't need to comply with the GNU GPL license to use it. Public Domain software is owned by anyone and everyone (the public).
If your going to pitch a squat on someone, at least get it right!
All software is proprietary. It is all property and owned by someone, even GPLed software is proprietary (property), otherwise people wouldn't need to comply with the GNU GPL license to use it. Public Domain software is owned by anyone and everyone (the public).
If your going to pitch a squat on someone, at least get it right!
Oh well, but the reason why GPL exists is that Stallman believes that software should have no owners. GPL is just a tool to keep people from privatizing free software. I know that, under the current legal system, authors own their GPL programs because the goal cannot be achieved otherwise. But the objective of GPL is to create software which will be owned by everyone and nobody will be able to steal it from society. (At least that's the view of the auhtors of the GPL. Off course the license was adopted by many who don't share this view at all.)
[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/painrelief<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/painrelief<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]
Tech Writers may not be a good target segment then
Posted by: Daniel Carrera on April 14, 2006 06:04 AM
What I get from this article is not that Linux on the desktop may be very far off. But rather, that focusing on tech writers may be a poor strategy. We have to pick the battles we are most likely to win. From the article it seems that Tech Writers are a difficult battle because they are simultaneously very demanding users and unwilling to try FOSS.
Maybe we should aim for markets that are less demanding (I'm not sure what those would be) or markets that have a stronger motivation to make FOSS work (advocacy groups, governments).
Best,
Daniel.
Maybe we should aim for markets that are less demanding (I'm not sure what those would be) or markets that have a stronger motivation to make FOSS work (advocacy groups, governments).
Best,
Daniel.
I wouldn't classify technical writers, on the whole, as expert "computer" users, and this article points out that fact.
I would classify them as expert "word" users, or expert "framemaker" users, etc. I.e., their "expertice" is so narrowally focused that it's related to a single program, or a small group of cooperating programs.
To be an expert "computer" users, in my mind, is to know more about computers, much more, than just the three desktop applications one uses on a daily basis.
And that is why they don't see free software as anything useful, or repeat the same old tired arguments against it that can be refuted so very easily. They are not computer experts, they are pigeon holed into particular being simply application program experts. But application program expert does not equate to computer expert, not by a long shot.
I would classify them as expert "word" users, or expert "framemaker" users, etc. I.e., their "expertice" is so narrowally focused that it's related to a single program, or a small group of cooperating programs.
To be an expert "computer" users, in my mind, is to know more about computers, much more, than just the three desktop applications one uses on a daily basis.
And that is why they don't see free software as anything useful, or repeat the same old tired arguments against it that can be refuted so very easily. They are not computer experts, they are pigeon holed into particular being simply application program experts. But application program expert does not equate to computer expert, not by a long shot.
It's just like travel agents. In the days before Travelocity they were computer adepts, able to interpret pages of arcane and meaningless symbols... and yet if you asked them to do anything else they were completely lost. They didn't really know anything about computers per se, only the Saabre program.
[URL=http://nervepainrelief.jeeran.com/painrelief<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> htm] Nerve pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.back.painreliefnetwork.net/lowbac<nobr>k<wbr></nobr> pain.htm] Low back pain [/URL]
[URL=http://blog.gala.net/uploads/painreliefback/<nobr>b<wbr></nobr> ackpainrelief.htm] Back pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.weblog.ro/usercontent/13155/profi<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> es/kneepainrelief.htm] Knee pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Pain-R<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> lief.html] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.sitefights.com/community/scifi/pa<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> nrelief/painreliefpreved.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Medica<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ion-Pain-Relief.html] Medication pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Natura<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> -Pain-Relief.html] Natural pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.back.painreliefnetwork.net/lowbac<nobr>k<wbr></nobr> pain.htm] Low back pain [/URL]
[URL=http://blog.gala.net/uploads/painreliefback/<nobr>b<wbr></nobr> ackpainrelief.htm] Back pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.weblog.ro/usercontent/13155/profi<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> es/kneepainrelief.htm] Knee pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Pain-R<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> lief.html] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.sitefights.com/community/scifi/pa<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> nrelief/painreliefpreved.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Medica<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ion-Pain-Relief.html] Medication pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://www.info.painreliefnetwork.net/Natura<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> -Pain-Relief.html] Natural pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painrelief.fanspace.com/index.htm] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://lowerbackpain.0pi.com/backpain.htm] Back Pain [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefproduct.guildspace.com] Pain relief [/URL]
[URL=http://painreliefmedic.friendpages.com] Pain relief [/URL]
Nearly all scientific and engineering journals (and text books) are typeset using TeX/LaTex/amsTex varients. This is all FLOSS software, one cannot remotely do these tasks using consumer word processing package.
The authors of such programs make their money from the textbooks and manuals that go along with the software. The software is free, but you pay for the book.
This article reads like one written by the Microsoft marketing department. What a crock!
The authors of such programs make their money from the textbooks and manuals that go along with the software. The software is free, but you pay for the book.
This article reads like one written by the Microsoft marketing department. What a crock!
I use the GIMP, and have used it heavily for several years to edit digital photos for user manuals. It's great!
I use OpenOffice drawing module to make illustrations.
There are a few features in OpenOffice's writing module that continue to make it unsuitable for technical writing the way I do it:
I use OpenOffice drawing module to make illustrations.
There are a few features in OpenOffice's writing module that continue to make it unsuitable for technical writing the way I do it:
- Its outlining feature is pathetic, compared to Mictosoft Word. I use the outline mode as a revision tool
- It can't do an overbar on characters in signal names.
- Assigning and editing styles and templates is user-hostile. Either the documentation is poor or it's a kludge.
- There is no way to send a gallery of objects to someone else.
I use what the employer provides<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... when the company decides that we'll all use FOSS, I'll use FOSS.
You'll have to battle for the hearts and minds of the CTOs and the PHBs to make it happen.
Oh boy, you said it. I have a tech writer friend that was "raised" on WordPerfect. For those younger folks, before MS Word was king, WordPerfect was king. She was thus the Mistress of All Things WordPerfect (TM).<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) In 1999, she came to work for my company, a small defense contractor. We used MS Office 2000. I heard her going on about "Why can't MS Word be more like WordPerfect? It was so easy to do in WordPerfect!" I told her, "Well, then, *you* tell that to the boss." She thus decided that she needed to master MS Office, and she did, becoming a Microsoft Office User Specialist (MOUS) that same year.
Fast forward three years. We both now work for separate companies, but have remained very good friends. She needed to write up a quick document, but she didn't yet own an office suite. I put her in front of OpenOffice.org Writer on my Windows 98 box. For the first minute, she thought she was in front of MS Word.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Then, after that minute passed, she looked at me and said, "Wait a minute..." and I just smiled. Since she was at this point in college full time (read: no money), she agreed to try out OO.o.
Over the next week, she complained to me over and over about how "Why can't OpenOffice be like MS Word? It's so easy to do in MS Word!" Can we say "deja-vu"?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Anyway, she went to the university bookstore and bought the student version of MS Office. The reason? "Well, I've mastered the quirks of MS Office now, and I just don't have time to master some other package's quirks."
In short, since her job was not at stake, she didn't see the motivation. But she sure had the time when she thought her job *was* at stake.
Fast forward three years. We both now work for separate companies, but have remained very good friends. She needed to write up a quick document, but she didn't yet own an office suite. I put her in front of OpenOffice.org Writer on my Windows 98 box. For the first minute, she thought she was in front of MS Word.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Then, after that minute passed, she looked at me and said, "Wait a minute..." and I just smiled. Since she was at this point in college full time (read: no money), she agreed to try out OO.o.
Over the next week, she complained to me over and over about how "Why can't OpenOffice be like MS Word? It's so easy to do in MS Word!" Can we say "deja-vu"?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Anyway, she went to the university bookstore and bought the student version of MS Office. The reason? "Well, I've mastered the quirks of MS Office now, and I just don't have time to master some other package's quirks."
In short, since her job was not at stake, she didn't see the motivation. But she sure had the time when she thought her job *was* at stake.
If you need hard-core, solid tools for creating books, you don't use Word or OpenOffice.org Writer. You use Framemaker. Cross-references, conditional text, and more are just so reliable and *good* in Frame.
When I take contract techwriting jobs, I screen out the ones that require me to use Word. I really don't like it. And Writer, while a less twitchy product in the styles and lists department, still doesn't have what I need for large professional documents.
My point here is to contradict the idea that Writer isn't as good as Word. Word and Writer are just different products than Framemaker, and Framemaker is generally the best software for producing the items techwriters create.
When I take contract techwriting jobs, I screen out the ones that require me to use Word. I really don't like it. And Writer, while a less twitchy product in the styles and lists department, still doesn't have what I need for large professional documents.
My point here is to contradict the idea that Writer isn't as good as Word. Word and Writer are just different products than Framemaker, and Framemaker is generally the best software for producing the items techwriters create.
Oh... I used ReStructuredText to wrote my book. You people really need MS Word?
Lots of tech writers use XML-based systems, usually based on DocBook or DITA, which are both open standards, governed by OASIS committees.
And they don't use XML Spy for authoring and editing. They use Arbortext Editor, which, while proprietary, actually incorporates lots of open source software. Or XMetaL, Arbortext Advanced Print Publisher (formerly Advent 3B2, also incorporates lots of open source software), or FrameMaker. There are a few more runners-up, notably XMLMind XML Editor, XXE. XXE is Java-based and run on any OS near you. Nerds turned tech writers also use emacs or vi, often in addition to an proprietary XML editor.
For processing and publishing, XML-based systems typically also rely on a fair amount of open source software. E.g., most processing of DocBook XML documents rely on an open source XSLT framework.
The Linux Documentation Project is currently based on DocBook, and so are KDE and Gnome documentation projects. If the exchange format is open and standardized, there's an open market for authoring and processing software. While most LDP and KDE and Gnome authors probably use emacs or vi, they could as well use Arbortext Editor or XXE. To the best of my knowledge, there is currently no open source XML-based editors with the same attention to tech writer productivity.
Personally, I've been using emacs for longer than I care to remember, but I like using XXE and Arbortext Editor as well.
BTW, there's a lot more to tech writing than pushing buttons in an editor. It's about 'document engineering'.
And they don't use XML Spy for authoring and editing. They use Arbortext Editor, which, while proprietary, actually incorporates lots of open source software. Or XMetaL, Arbortext Advanced Print Publisher (formerly Advent 3B2, also incorporates lots of open source software), or FrameMaker. There are a few more runners-up, notably XMLMind XML Editor, XXE. XXE is Java-based and run on any OS near you. Nerds turned tech writers also use emacs or vi, often in addition to an proprietary XML editor.
For processing and publishing, XML-based systems typically also rely on a fair amount of open source software. E.g., most processing of DocBook XML documents rely on an open source XSLT framework.
The Linux Documentation Project is currently based on DocBook, and so are KDE and Gnome documentation projects. If the exchange format is open and standardized, there's an open market for authoring and processing software. While most LDP and KDE and Gnome authors probably use emacs or vi, they could as well use Arbortext Editor or XXE. To the best of my knowledge, there is currently no open source XML-based editors with the same attention to tech writer productivity.
Personally, I've been using emacs for longer than I care to remember, but I like using XXE and Arbortext Editor as well.
BTW, there's a lot more to tech writing than pushing buttons in an editor. It's about 'document engineering'.
I think the article is a great example of listening to a specific user population, even though it is a bit dismissive of the intelligence and some concerns of the respondents. So much of the "why isn't everyone using open source" question is ideological it is great to see somebody compiling data.
My take from the tenor of the quotes in the article is that you are facing a basic problem of switching costs for this particular category of users. This is similar to what others have said about familiarity, but also a little different (I am definitely not one to preach familiarity over better design!).
Whenever you are trying to completley supplant the practices of a longstanding user community that is invested in a product with a different set of practices associated with a new product, you have set the bar especially high for yourself. The costs of switching from one to the other should not be minimized. Depending on their level of expertise with the old product, the user will have to contend with a short or long period of reduced productivity (perhaps counterintiutively, the more expert users will have the longer period of adjustment). They will have to invest time in learning the new product, no matter how intuitive it is. They will also have to integrate the new product into the context of their entire work toolset (think new drivers for printers, importing exporting files, incompatible formats, etc. etc.), and this can be costly. As if that is not bad enough, they will have to integrate it into their practices for collaborating with others.
Most of these issues are mentioned in your article, but I did not see a focus on what they say about the true costs of switching. To overcome these costs, the product must both minimize them as much as possible, AND strike the user quickly as clearly superior in a variety of ways. "Just as good, and open source", or even "somewhat better and open source" is not going to be good enough for most people who don't have a strong ideological orientation to open source, and are willing to swallow the switching costs as part of that commitment.
My take from the tenor of the quotes in the article is that you are facing a basic problem of switching costs for this particular category of users. This is similar to what others have said about familiarity, but also a little different (I am definitely not one to preach familiarity over better design!).
Whenever you are trying to completley supplant the practices of a longstanding user community that is invested in a product with a different set of practices associated with a new product, you have set the bar especially high for yourself. The costs of switching from one to the other should not be minimized. Depending on their level of expertise with the old product, the user will have to contend with a short or long period of reduced productivity (perhaps counterintiutively, the more expert users will have the longer period of adjustment). They will have to invest time in learning the new product, no matter how intuitive it is. They will also have to integrate the new product into the context of their entire work toolset (think new drivers for printers, importing exporting files, incompatible formats, etc. etc.), and this can be costly. As if that is not bad enough, they will have to integrate it into their practices for collaborating with others.
Most of these issues are mentioned in your article, but I did not see a focus on what they say about the true costs of switching. To overcome these costs, the product must both minimize them as much as possible, AND strike the user quickly as clearly superior in a variety of ways. "Just as good, and open source", or even "somewhat better and open source" is not going to be good enough for most people who don't have a strong ideological orientation to open source, and are willing to swallow the switching costs as part of that commitment.
Until there's a FOSS FrameMaker equivalent...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 22, 2006 06:00 AM
I think it's telling that FrameMaker is mentioned nowhere in the main article, and that I have to scroll down more than a page of comments before I see a reference to it.
I've been a technical writer for more than ten years, and every shop I've worked in where the doc was worth anything at all, used FrameMaker. There is no other software out there that matches it for creating documentation -- FOSS, buy-ware, shareware, or anything else.
I'm technically savvy. I've installed Linux to dual-boot on a laptop with Win2k. I've downloaded GIMP and Open Office and scores of other FOSS tools, and used them. I am not your typical technical writer. But I do know whereof I speak, when I say that the FOSS movement would have to get a very different attitude and a whole lot more focus on the end user before they'll get the technical writers in their camp.
And I am extremely dubious that anything FOSS would ever adequately replace FrameMaker. You're encouraged to try, and I'd be glad to be proved wrong (mostly because Adobe looks like they're going to punt it any year now), but I am, as I said, dubious.
I've been a technical writer for more than ten years, and every shop I've worked in where the doc was worth anything at all, used FrameMaker. There is no other software out there that matches it for creating documentation -- FOSS, buy-ware, shareware, or anything else.
I'm technically savvy. I've installed Linux to dual-boot on a laptop with Win2k. I've downloaded GIMP and Open Office and scores of other FOSS tools, and used them. I am not your typical technical writer. But I do know whereof I speak, when I say that the FOSS movement would have to get a very different attitude and a whole lot more focus on the end user before they'll get the technical writers in their camp.
And I am extremely dubious that anything FOSS would ever adequately replace FrameMaker. You're encouraged to try, and I'd be glad to be proved wrong (mostly because Adobe looks like they're going to punt it any year now), but I am, as I said, dubious.
Familiarity Is Important!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2006 08:35 PMMy experience is that people will move to FOSS if and when the Desktops and Apps are familiar to them.
FOSS typicaly scandalizes the poor newbies with radical new designs, interfaces, and techniques. Too much for newbies to deal with. Too much, too soon, for people who have too little time.
Newbies want Windows, but without the Microsoft hedgemony. FOSS project coders are like Architects who want to build monuments to themselves.
FOSS is already a lot like Microsoft Windows though, because just like Microsoft, they refuse to give the end users what they want.
Sad but true.
#