OT: MIL specs (was RE: general publication quiestion)

[Daniel Emory]

Certainly I don't advocate the use of MIL specs for
preparing commercial manuals. I do know, however, that
most tech writers who produce manuals for commercial
products remain blissfully unaware of the problems
caused by their outputs. 

Unlike typical users of commercial products, most
users of MIL=SPEC manuals have received thorough
training on the systems they will maintain/operate,
including classroom exposure to the manuals they will
use after they graduate. Nevertheless, they frequently
foul up, and sometimes it's because the manual is
poorly written or deficient in other ways. Unlike the
commercial world, the military reacts by investigating
manual-caused snafus, and taking corrective action,
which may include modification of both the training
and the manuals. 

All I was trying to say is that tech writers in the
non-military world should take advantage of remedial
measures taken by the military to minimize foul-ups.
One such remedial measure was to require blank pages
to have the infamous "THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY
BLANK" appear in the middle of each empty page. The
absence of this statement on a blank page assures that
the reader knows something is missing. The military
learned the necessity of this measure the hard way,
yet the general ridicule this subject receives each
time it arises is equivalent to ridiculint the fact
that car manufacturers discovered it was wise to
prevent idiots from starting their automobile while
the shift lever is set to reverse. 
--- "Combs, Richard" <richard.combs at Polycom.com>
wrote:

> Daniel Emory wrote:  
>  
> > The fact is that the US military is the only true
> laboratory 
> > where technical documentation is subjected to
> extensive 
> > post-publication review to determine its
> effectiveness in the 
> > real world. Findings resulting from analyses of
> actual 
> > foul-ups lead to continuing improvements in tech
> manual 
> > instructions. Those who write manuals for
> non-military 
> > applications ought to also take advantage of that
> laboratory.
> 
> First there was "only one way." Now there's the
> "only true laboratory."
> I'm seeing a pattern here... 
> 
> Ever hear the (chiefly British) expression "horses
> for courses"? :-)
> 
> Don't get me wrong -- I'm a huge fan of the US
> military (especially when
> they're killing Islamofascists). I donate to
> Soldier's Angels, the USO,
> VFW, PVA, ... 
> 
> But if some edict were to declare that henceforth
> all technical
> documentation everywhere must be done to MIL specs,
> I suspect I'd change
> professions or retire. At the least, I'd have to go
> on anti-depressants.



Dan Emory & Associates
FrameMaker/FrameMaker+SGML Document Design & Database Publishing
<danemory7224 at sbcglobal.net>