Switching to Structured FrameMaker

[Fei Min Lorente]

Hi Nancy:

Structured FrameMaker goes a long way towards consistency, but it can't
enforce everything. I'll start with the good news:

The reason my SMEs prefer working in structured FM is because they don't
have to apply formatting so much as they have to call a thing what it
is. I mean that they can call something a list item, and not worry about
whether it's the first list item (so it needs space before it and has a
different para style), or the last list item (so it needs space after
it), or one in the middle. Yes, they still have to choose between an
ordered list (uses numbers), or an unordered list (uses bullets), but if
they took one list item from one kind of list and put it in the other,
the formatting would automatically change for them.

The structure also (helps to) enforce certain rules. For example, if you
always want a caption under your diagrams, you can specify that in your
structure. Then the caption element automatically shows up at the top of
the list with a big bold checkmark to remind them to put it there, and
there's a red box in the structure view showing that something is
missing. They can ignore all this and still save the file, but at least
it's easy to find the missing thing.

Oh, that's another good thing. Instead of seeing a long list of
character and paragraph styles, you'll only see the ones that are valid
in the place where your cursor is in the structure. It cuts down on
scrolling and having too many choices.

Finally, just the process of implementing structure will force you to
standardize existing documents and how you write. It's a great (if
somewhat time-consuming) exercise.

I gave my SMEs a one-hour tutorial on using structured FM, about 2 pages
of notes, a long document explaining all the elements and what they mean
(reference material; I doubt most of them read it), and away they went.
Most of them had never used FM before at all (which might have been a
good thing :-). Then I made myself available for any problems because
the last thing you want is a frustrated user. It's been very successful
except with a few of them who don't use structured FM often enough to
remember the tutorial, and don't have time to learn it all over again.
Some people just won't give up Word. :-(

NOTE: The SMEs are just using the template and writing content (with
graphics and tables). They are not defining elements nor styles nor
anything like that. Boy, do I wish we had a FrameMaker-Lite that would
just let authors do their thing for less money! But I digress.

Now the bad news:

- Structured FrameMaker cannot enforce the use of variables. Users can
still choose to type text instead of using a variable, or they can
choose the wrong one.

- Cross-references that are copied from one document to another still
have to be redirected.

- You will have to give people a choice of elements to use at any given
spot, and they can still choose inappropriately. Hopefully, it will be
obvious to them and they won't do it on purpose. :-) 

In your example of an "older document" and a new template, the outcome
depends on whether the older document is structured, too. If it is, then
the copy and paste is fairly seamless except that cross-references will
still have to be updated or they might point to the old documents.
Variables will copy over as usual: if they have a new name, they are
copied to the new document. If they have a duplicate name, they take on
the value of the target document. You should design the structure so
that it is valid in older and newer documents.

However, if the older document is unstructured and new template is
structured, you have to use a conversion table or tag (apply elements
to) the piece that's been copied and pasted. When you apply the
structure, the formatting happens automagically.

You might consider using a standard XML schema such as DITA if you're
worried about a steady stream of new people. Then the contractors might
be familiar with the elements and structure, and that will certainly cut
down the learning curve. On the other hand, if they're not familiar with
DITA, it might increase it.

I really love structured over unstructured; does it show? ;-)

Fei Min Lorente

-----Original Message-----
From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Allison
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:44 AM
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Switching to Structured FrameMaker

I've gotten some wonderful responses both on the list and privately. I'd
begun to think that, since a lot of my clients rely on freelancers who
come and go, structured FrameMaker might be the way to ensure
consistency across documents. 

Then it occurred to me, how hard is it to get writers on board with
structured documentation?

If you hire a new person and they don't know structured FrameMaker, how
much coaching do you have to do to get them started?

And . . . does it really make the usual craziness about autonumbering
and variables in headers, footers, TOCs, LOTs, LOFs, and Indexes . .  GO
AWAY? (I mean, in this situation: new contractor comes on board, gets
new template, at some point copies text from an older doc with
conflicting paragraph tags; variables and cross-references break;
frustration and hair-tearing ensue.)

The elimination of that struggle would be worth a lot.

Thanks one and all.
_______________________________________________


You are currently subscribed to Framers as feimin.lorente at onsemi.com.

Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
or visit
http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/feimin.lorente%40ons
emi.com

Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.