In this webcast, Sarah O’Keefe of Scriptorium surveys DITA’s publishing options and weighs their practical implications.
Archive for the ‘Events’ Category

Extracting deliverables from DITA
August 18th, 2010 by Sarah O'Keefe

Webcast: Knowledge integration: The future of technical communication
July 16th, 2010 by ScriptoriumTech
Scriptorium hosts Tristan Bishop of Symantec as he muses on technical communicators’ evolving roles.

Is tech comm management different in an XML environment?
June 16th, 2010 by Sarah O'Keefe
I think so. Read the white paper and see if you agree.
Or, if you prefer, you can watch the webcast version:
Executive summary: When you transition a department or workgroup to XML-based authoring, you will need to change how you manage that department, particularly in the areas of accountability, transparency, metrics, skill sets, and collaboration.
I look forward to your comments.
PS Upon reviewing the audio, I noticed that, um, I say “um” a lot. You’ll be happy to know that I edited the audio to remove the worst of it.

Trends in technical communication webcast
May 26th, 2010 by Sarah O'Keefe
After some “interesting” technical challenges, the recording of our Trends in technical communication webcast is now available on Slideshare:
Note that I synched up the audio to the slides, but it does not appear to be synching correctly, so there’s a possibility you might need to advance the slides yourself.

Calculating document quality (QUACK)
May 14th, 2010 by Sarah O'Keefe
[I am working on a white paper version of the presentation I just gave at the STC Summit in Dallas. This is an excerpt. If you didn't get a chance to see the session, I'm doing it as a webcast in mid-June (event details) and also (presumably updated) at the tekom conference in November.]
Creating a useful measurement system for document quality requires you to go deeper than just pages per hour. (For software developers, the equivalent sloppy metric is “lines of code per month.”)
We recommend developing a measurement system based on the following ducky components:
- Quality: This measures the correct application of the grammar, mechanics, style guide, consistency, and similar properties. Writing quality is more important for an audience of low literacy users, English as a second language users (assuming the content is in English), and picky users, such as English teachers. Writing quality is generally less important for an audience of highly motivated specialists; for example, software developers reading very technical API documentation.
- Usability: Writing quality measures the ease of comprehension of the text, graphics, or other content by the intended audience. Usability measures the ease of access to the information. To measure usability, you look at factors such as the document navigation system (headers and footers for print; breadcrumbs and the like for online). Did the author employ the proper medium for a particular piece of content? For example, are illustrations provided instead of—or in addition to—lengthy textual explanations? Is the content presented in an attractive, appealing way? Are simulations and video available? High usability is especially important if users can simply choose not to use the product. For example, for a consumer product, such as a cell phone, high usability is important because consumers have lots of options. For products that people must use as part of their job, usability is important to ensure that people can get the job done.
- Accuracy: Does the content describe the product’s features correctly? This factor is especially important for high-stakes documents, such as how to use a machine that delivers radioactive isotopes for nuclear medicine. A mistake in casual game–playing instructions is not of much concern.
- Completeness: Are all of the product features documented? Game documentation often includes only the bare minimum and allows players to discover features for themselves as they play the game. On the other hand, regulated products, such as medical devices, are required to have complete documentation.
- Conciseness: Documents should have as much content as required, and no more. Verbose documents are more difficult to understand, and they increase the cost of localization and printing. This principle is closely related to minimalism.
The overall equation is as follows:
(Q+U+A+C+K)/Cost
Consider your specific environment in refining the calculation for your environment. For
example, you might divided 100 total quality points among the five measurements in
different ways depending on your industry.
| Metric | Regulated documentation | Consumer documentation |
|---|---|---|
| Quality | 9 | 30 |
| Usability | 10 | 30 |
| Accuracy | 40 | 10 |
| Completeness | 40 | 10 |
| Conciseness | 1 | 20 |
Your biggest cost factor is probably the cost of technical communicators. You may also want to factor in other costs, such as software and hardware. Unless you are printing actual paper books, your production costs are probably minimal. (Web servers are cheap!)
What are your thoughts? Do these factors give you a way to calculate your overall document quality?

Rise of the machines (news from the STC Summit, #stc10)
May 6th, 2010 by Sarah O'Keefe
First, a disclaimer. Between time spent at our trade show booth, my own presentations, and important social events, I managed to attend exactly ONE session where I wasn’t presenting. That was Erin McKean’s keynote, which was fantastic. Her STC session isn’t available online (yet), but here is a TED talk she did on redefining the dictionary:
All twitter, all the time
The conference hashtag, #stc10, was busy and I mean BUSY. There were tweets with soundbites, social event announcements, comments, discussion, and some really important stuff from Bill Swallow, aka @techcommdood:
Who’s got room at their lunch tables??? #stc10
I think that problem got solved by analog means, but nonetheless.
My sessions
There were only a couple of tweets out of my managing XML session. Not sure whether this is because everyone was asleep or I had the non-tweeting audience. I suppose I will find out when I see my official evaluations.
Meanwhile, I will be repeating that session as a webcast on June 15, 1–2 p.m. The event is free, but registration is required. (There’s also a session on Trends in Technical Communication later this month if you’re interested.)
Looking for conference feedback
If you attended the conference, please remember to fill out session evaluations. I was the track manager for Design, Architecture, and Publishing this year (and perhaps for 2011 as well), so I am especially interested in those results.
Are there speakers that you particularly want to see (or not) next year? I can’t speak for all of the conference organizers, but I paid close attention to any available speaker ratings from prior years in evaluating new proposals.
Also, if you have other feedback on the conference, please leave a comment or send me email (or a tweet if it fits!) and I will ensure that the 2011 conference team gets the information.
Certification
I think I might have buried the lede in this post. After decades of debate (not an exaggeration), STC has approved a certification program. Certification will be portfolio-based rather than exam-based.
Finally, the Carolina chapter scored big-time at the event. Congratulations to Michelle Corbin and Ann-Marie Grissino, who were named Fellows. And Larry Kunz (who is already a Fellow) received the President’s Award for his strategic planning work in the past year.


