Reasons to Structure

[russ at weststreetconsulting.com]

Jeremy Griffith, write:

<snip>

You can do the same with paragraph formats, too.  But you can
do all that in UNstructured docs just as easily as in structured.
Maybe *more* easily, when you factor in the time to set up your
structure, and to modify it when you make changes, which is major.  

I've only been able to identify one situation in which structured 
Frame can do this better than unstructured, and that's when you'd 
want nested element tags within a paragraph, since you cam't nest 
character formats.  (There are easy workarounds for creating the 
equivalent of nested paragraph formats, such as using start/end 
formats and/or markers.)  OTOH, I have yet to see a non-hypothetical 
case where such nested char formats were really needed...

Structured Frame is designed for large pubs groups where standard
document designs are required, perhaps for ISO 9000, perhaps for
other corporate policy reasons.  For smaller groups, and especially
for lone writers, the setup costs (time and consultants) are likely
to exceed the benefits, much like a CMS (Content Management System)
can.  There are excellent consultants around, many on this list,
for whom it is a breeze.  If you decide to go this way, hire one.
It will prevent much anguish and hair loss.

-- Jeremy H. Griffith, at Omni Systems Inc.
 <jeremy at omsys.com>  http://www.omsys.com/
<snip>
>>
>>

This is misinformation, on nearly all counts. I am a lone writer who is completely dependent on structured Frame. Without it, I would need at least twice the manpower to handle the busywork that it does. Furthermore, I adhere to no industry standard and make changes to my structured template frequently. 

Here's is just one tiny example of what it does for me, not even the tip of the iceberg...

I have an element tag called "li" (list item).  When I insert, move, or copy it anywhere, this element:

- Automatically checks to see if it is in a lone bullet list. If so, it automatically applies a bullet item format
- If not, checks to see if it is in a bullet list, nested in another bullet list.  If so, it applies a nested bullet format
- If not, checks to see if it is in a bullet list, nested in a number list. If so, it applies a special nested bullet format for inside number list
- If not, checks to see if it is in a number list. If so, it then checks to see if it is the first one. If it is, it automatically applies a number restart format. Otherwise, it applies the regular number format
- If not, checks to see if it is in a nested number list. If so, it checks to see if it is the first one. If it is, it automatically applies a subnumber restart format. Otherwise, it automatically applies a regular subnumber format.
- If not, checks to see if it is in a nested number list, under a bullet list. If so, it then checks to see if it is the first one. If it is, it automatically applies a special subnumber format for restarting. If not, it applies a regular subnumber format.

That's just a sampling. And by the way, I didn't even mention tables. If the element discovers that it is in a table, it goes through this identical decision process with a whole different set of table-related formats. So there is something like 16 different paragraph formats, all represented by one tag.  I never, ever have to think about the paragraph format.  I just know that I need a list item and stick it in there. The technology decides on the format tag for me.

Maybe you guys don't use lists, but I use lots of them.  And this is a huge timesaver with every single list item.  And just for a second, think about this... if you have to think about starting a number list at "1", there is something obsolete about your tool.  That's a pretty simple request, in the grand scheme of things.

Granted, the setup costs for me are minimal now, because I have the skill set.  But that is the whole point of these occasional rants... you just have to get in there and learn, because that's when it becomes a breeze. Don't buy those arguments from people who say it isn't worth the time... they made the same exact argument some decades ago when we were all using typewriters and thinking about computers.  They could (and do) make the same exact arguments now when we are working in Word and thinking about Framemaker.  Of course it takes time to ramp up, but when it is so obviously the way of the future, the investment is worth it. If you don't make that investment, someone who did will eventually be doing your job.

Two final points...

- I'll retract much of what I said if you can provide a single recent example of anything groundbreaking in the area of techcomm that specifically involved unstructured content.

- Always beware of the typewriter salesman when you are reading the computer brochure.

Russ

------------------------------