Comments on: What’s more important, content or process?

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:42:34 +0000

@Ben, thanks for the comment. I have to agree with you on those points. I’ve been in work situations where a style guide was used as just that: a guide, which helped maintain consistency. But I’ve also been in situation like the one at TCTSNBN where the style guide was the be all, end all. And adhering to it made the writing turgid, wordy, and generally ineffective.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:33:53 +0000

The style guides I’ve encountered seem to be written to provide consistency, not really trying to enforce “good writing.” Consistency contributes to usability and clarity, but there’s more. I think a style guide can go only so far to increase the effectiveness of writing; most of the responsibility is on the writers and editors/reviewers.
Ben´s last blog ..Five Skills for Managing Documentation Projects in an Agile Environment

By: Tweets that mention What’s more important, content or process? by Communications from DMN -- Topsy.com

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:00:29 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DMN Communications, WritePoint. WritePoint said: RT @dmnguys: [Blog post] What's more important, content or process? http://bit.ly/7qtyfz [...]

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:14:00 +0000

@Ivan, I find that to be easier now that I’m a consultant. But back when I was a full timer, avoiding the distractions and getting on with the work was more difficult than it needed to be. Especially at TCTSNBN …

By: Ivan Walsh

Ivan Walsh — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:22:55 +0000

Hi Scott,

People tend to get defensive when the 'way we always do it' is questioned, i.e. the style guides become an impediment or distraction to getting the material written up.

Their is no magic bullet to solve this, tbh.

I try to save my energy, do the work, and move to the next project. Life is too short.

"You can lead a horse to water…"

Regards,

Ivan
Ivan Walsh´s last blog ..Comment on How to link your Flickr and Twitter accounts by DailyCashSaver

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:15:37 +0000

@Milan, Darn it! I’m not changing the title …

By: Milan Davidovic

Milan Davidovic — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:57:30 +0000

Is this really “process”? Looks to me more like “standards”.
Milan Davidovic´s last blog ..drum ‘n’ voice (20091117)

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:53:59 +0000

@Kai, good points (as always). My overall impression is that most writers will internalize the salient points of whatever style guide their company uses. It’s pretty much a matter of repeated use. However, strictly adhering to a set of guidelines won’t make your documentation better or more usable.

By: Kai

Kai — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:43:43 +0000

Interesting post, Scott! As a writer who sometimes edits other writers’ work, I can relate to either side of the argument.

So I tend to a middleground approach which gives both sides their due, if it requires a bit more thought: The style guide is supposed to be a tool, not a torture instrument. Items and rules in the style guide are appropriate not because they there, but because there’s a reason for them. If a writer goes against the style guide for a better reason, that’s often fine.

I don’t quite agree that “any deviation from the style guidelines that’s transparent to the reader is OK”. I know style guides that contain several items that are transparent to the reader, but they help the documentation process, such as reuse, translation (be it manual or automated) or content structure. Again, if you reckon with the reasons behind the rules, you know better when you can bend the rules and at what cost, not just to yourself, but the documentation as a whole.

“What’s more important, content or process?” I think some people in any given doc team are better with one, some with the other. Hopefully, they balance out and appreciate each other’s contribution to the success of the joint documentation.