FM v. RoboHelp

[Stuart Rogers]

John Sgammato wrote:
> I think you're right on, Lin. 
> You know the tools you need to produce your deliverables. 
> I don't tell my plumber what kind of wrench to use...
> 
> john 

Sounds more like a case of "I don't tell my plumber which voltmeter to 
use..."

Does Mr./Ms. Quality understand why "Help" is in the RoboHelp name?  Why 
on earth would you choose such a tool to create a whole list of 
deliverables *none of which* is Help??  (Because when all you have is a 
hammer, everything looks like nails...)

You're right to stick to your guns, Lin -- you're using the best tool 
there is for the job you have to do.  It would be very foolish and 
counterproductive indeed to standardize on RH for your deliverables.

Good luck!
stuart


> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: framers-bounces+jsgammato=imprivata.com at lists.frameusers.com
> [mailto:framers-bounces+jsgammato=imprivata.com at lists.frameusers.com] On
> Behalf Of Lin Surasky
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 2:10 PM
> To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> Subject: FM v. RoboHelp
> 
> No, it's not a typo. No, we're not being asked to use Word.... 
>  
> The person in charge of "quality" for our company does not seem to
> understand why we don't use RoboHelp to create content for our software
> manuals. After all, every office has RoboHelp (not the Adobe version),
> so what's the big deal? To me, the big deal is that we deliver PDFs, not
> CHMs, to our customers, and they like the layout. And it's faster to
> work in FM than it is in RH. My rule is, if I have to provide a TOC,
> it's a book. If I'm providing a book, I'm working in FM. If they decide
> they ALSO want HTML or CHM files, I can do that too, with FrameMaker and
> MIF2Go. I can't create a CHM in RH and then effortlessly have a pretty
> PDF to give our other customers, or can I?
>  
> For the record, we are not currently delivering ANY online help. We
> deliver User Guides, Admin Guides, Release Notes, and
> whitepapers/reports. All are electronic -- no printing except for the
> pages our users want to print for themselves. Am I wrong to stick so
> stubbornly to my FM process?
>  
> FM Process: Source content created and maintained in FM book. For
> delivery, PDFs are generated with live x-refs/links where necessary
> using Acrobat. If users want or need HTML, MIF2Go is ready to -- er, go.
> (No one in the US has EVER asked for a CHM, but if it should happen, use
> HTML Help Workshop to compile the HTML Help from MIF2Go.)
>  
> RH Process: Source content created and maintained in RH. For delivery,
> PDFs are generated and look awful because there's no clean page layout
> formatting OR CHMs are delivered.
>  
> Does it even make sense to deliver CHM for browser-based software being
> accessed over a network, since CHMs need to be accessed from the hard
> drive (unless you get into registry edits, which is NOT an option for
> us.)
>  
> (We're also not doing much file-swapping amongst writers; we all kind of
> do our own thing, and there's not much room for content reuse right now,
> but still they want everyone to follow the same process...)
>  
> Ideas? Feedback? I promised I would get opinions from the experts over
> here, as I apparently don't qualify as one myself... So what would you
> do, wise ones?
>  
> Lin
> _______________________________________________


-- 
Stuart Rogers
Technical Communicator
Phoenix Geophysics Limited
Toronto, ON, Canada
+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325

srogers phoenix-geophysics com

"Developers explain How the Product Works.
Technical writers explain How to Work the Product."