I’ve seen quite a few comebacks in my time, from bellbottoms to grungy flannel. But most of these trends are short-lived. A once long-standing staple among technical writing and content authoring groups has nearly gone extinct: the technical editor. Is it time for this role to make a comeback?
Coauthored by Sarah O’Keefe and Gretyl Kinsey
Commissioned by Adobe Systems, Inc. (What does this mean?)
Organizations can no longer funnel people into convenient pre-sales and post-sales categories. They need to align their content creation efforts for marketing and technical content. Adobe offers a solution that allows for creation of structured technical content (DITA) and less structured marketing content in a single repository.
Coauthored by Sarah O’Keefe and Alan Pringle
First published in 2001.
Structured authoring and XML represent a significant paradigm shift in content creation. Implementing structured authoring with XML allows organizations to enforce content organization requirements. The addition of hierarchy and metadata to content improves reuse and content management. These benefits, however, must be weighed against the effort required to implement a structured authoring approach. The business case is compelling for larger writing organizations; they will be the first to adopt structured authoring. Over time, improvements in available tools will reduce the cost of implementing structured authoring and make it affordable for smaller organizations.
This post is a follow-up to the Content interoperability case study by Scriptorium and Heretto (formerly easyDITA). To learn more about the project from the perspective of the AJCC, Heretto interviewed Laura Meyer, the AJCC 8th Edition Project Manager and Managing Editor, AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. Scriptorium is re-publishing this interview with permission from Heretto and Laura Meyer.
What if DITA could lead to better care for people with cancer? This case study shows how Scriptorium and Heretto (formerly easyDITA) worked with the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) to help give doctors faster, more targeted access to cancer staging information.
This post is the first in a series about the value proposition of localization strategies. You can also see a presentation on this topic at LavaCon this October.
Localization issues are a primary reason companies seek help with a new content strategy. One of the most common questions we hear is, “How do we make our localization process better?”
When we’re asked this question, we turn the question around. What is wrong with your current localization process? What would you like to improve? How do you define “better?”
You have a content strategy plan. Management has agreed to fund implementation. Time for the happy dance, right?
A little celebration is in order. But you still have to prove your new strategy will work in the real world. Showing early success with an “easy win” during implementation will give you momentum.
In lean management, a concrete head is someone resistant to change. In my years working on content strategy projects, I have noticed many people are resistant to changing how they develop and distribute content—sometimes without even knowing it.
Balancing the standardization of structured content against creative requirements is not just about formatting. When companies choose an XML standard, such as DITA or DocBook, they must evaluate whether to use the default structure or modify it to better fit requirements. The discussion about such changes is a creative process itself. When should a company change default structures?
