Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Saturday, April 10, 2004 6:34 AM Amelia A. Lewis Wrote: > the tool set not only buffers the folks who need buffers, but reduces the opportunity > for advanced learning in that direction (knowledge of the whole process, > and of the underlying tools and document definitions). Just a side note to an interesting thread: The environment I work in sounds very similar to Henrik's. I am incredibly thankful that I began in this environment. If I had been tossed into a plain text editor when I first started as a tech writer, I probably would have run screaming into the night. Now, I prefer a text editor for my own work, but most of our authors/editors prefer the more structured editing environment. Well, once they reconciled themselves to using markup instead of the word processor free-for-all. :-) The point I want to make about the quote above is that this environment does *not* reduce the opportunity for advanced learning. I'm now the XML analyst here, do data modeling, DTD design, have become a programmer and do translation scripting, and have a far deeper knowledge of and involvement with "the whole process, and the underlying tools and document definitions." The only real gaps in training have been budget-related; no money for training. That is beginning to change, so the opportunity to learn and grow is increasing even more. I guess my overall take on the whole topic is: It depends on what you are trying to do and who is trying to do it. Some environments don't need to be rigid and well-formed is enough. Other environments do need more structure (we publish drug information; flaws in content and even some markup can lead to legal issues). I won't rehash all the arguments; Ari Nordstrom's and Len Bullard's earlier responses addressed much of what I would have to say. ____________________________________ Douglas Rudder drudder@d... "Never apologize for an informed opinion." -- Len Bullard
|
