Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Mark Baker
157 followers -
Every Page is Page One
Every Page is Page One

157 followers
About
Posts

Post has attachment
Experts read more than novices, yet we write short for experts and long for novices. An escape from the conundrum. https://everypageispageone.com/2018/10/07/experts-read-more-than-novices/ #techcomm #eppo #contentstrategy
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Is Single Sourcing Dead. Recently I suggested that it was Time to Move to Multisourcing (https://everypageispageone.com/2018/04/06/time-to-move-to-multi-sourcing/). Neil Perlin responded by asking Is Single-Sourcing Dead? (http://hyperword.blogspot.com/2018/09/is-single-sourcing-dead.html) Answer: no, but it is (or should be) changing.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
We have been trying to make single sourcing work for decades with limited success. It is time to start thinking in terms of multiple sources with a common publishing process. Time to move to multi-sourcing https://everypageispageone.com/2018/04/06/time-to-move-to-multi-sourcing/
Time to move to multi-sourcing
Time to move to multi-sourcing
everypageispageone.com
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Content always creates an incomplete bridge. The reader always has to build some spans for themselves for communication to be successful. Remembering this can help us set achievable goals, avoid overbuilding, and design content that leaves room for the reader to complete their part of the task. http://everypageispageone.com/2017/09/18/the-incomplete-bridge/
The incomplete bridge
The incomplete bridge
everypageispageone.com
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
We get trade policy wrong when we fail to think about the whole picture. Same thing goes for structured writing. http://everypageispageone.com/2017/05/22/structured-writing-and-free-trade/
Structured Writing and Free Trade
Structured Writing and Free Trade
everypageispageone.com
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
I sent my new book to the publisher yesterday. Today I reflect on the value of writing long-form content, its capacity to force you to find the unifying idea that you might never find in any amount of short-form writing. In Praise of Long-form Content: http://everypageispageone.com/2017/03/01/in-praise-of-long-form-content/
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Mark Baker commented on a post on Blogger.
The thing that really made technical writing a stand-alone profession is technical publishing. The making of manuals is a complex business. The desktop publishing revolution really created the model of the modern technical writer -- someone who could not only write a manual but do all the document design and prepress for a manual that would then be printed and put in a box, beyond the scope of correction or addition. It took focus to get is all right, and all assembled and in the box on deadline.

Updating a wiki or pushing an article out to the web is so much easier than publishing a manual, and it can be corrected and added to at any time. That is what really breaks the traditional model of the tech writer.

But then the question becomes, do we really want to just have everyone dumping out content to the web? The answer is probably no, but that becomes a problem of content management, not publication. Writing a manual and publishing a manual are tasks on the same scale, so it makes sense to have one person do both. But content management and content authoring happen on different scales. Assigning them to the same person makes less sense.

DITA really dates from the days of technical publishing. It puts a lot of the management functionality in the author's hands, which makes sense in the manual publishing paradigm, but not in the content management paradigm. I find it interesting, but not surprising, that we are starting to see vendors in the CCMS space rejecting DITA now. They can offer CCMS functionality with less overhead without DITA.

But if all this breaks the model of the tech writer, the new model seems to me to be far from clear or established. The Web, as David Weinberger observed, is about small pieces loosely joined. Web content should be characterised by cohesion and loose coupling. It should form a bottom-up information architecture where readers can move about effectively through the content, as the do in Wikipedia, for instance.

What we seem to have instead is a kind of content warehousing. Small pieces barely joined at all, but categorized and catalogued. It is not information architecture so much as information warehousing. This really does not cut it for complex information needs and non-obvious information requests. It's not that the old manual paradigm works any better. But there is considerable resistance to moving away from it because the alternatives are not really mature. The old model of the tech writer ought to have collapsed, and it is certainly crumbling at the edges, but it hangs on, not because it should, but because the alternative is not there yet.

When we do figure out how to create content that is cohesive and loosely coupled in a bottom-up information architecture, we will see how the roles of the various contributors shake out. Until then, we will be waving goodbye to a ship that can't actually get out of the harbour.
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded