Skip to main content
DITA

Publishing DITA without the DITA Open Toolkit: A Trend or a Temporary Detour?

I estimate that about 80 percent of our consulting work is XML implementation. And about 80 percent of our XML implementation work is based on DITA. So we spend a lot of time with DITA and the DITA Open Toolkit.

I’m starting to wonder, though, whether the adoption rate of DITA and the DITA Open Toolkit is going to diverge.

For DITA, what we hear most often is that it’s “good enough.” DITA may not be a perfect fit for a customer’s content, but our customer doesn’t see a compelling reason to build the perfect structure. In other words, they are willing to compromise on document structure. DITA structure, even without specialization, offers a reasonable topic-based solution.

But for output, the requirements tend to be much more exacting. Customers want any output to match their established look and feel requirements precisely.

Widespread adoption of DITA leads to a a sort of herd effect with safety in numbers. Not so for the Open Toolkit — output requirements vary widely and people are reluctant to contribute back to the Open Toolkit, perhaps because look and feel is considered proprietary.

The pattern we’re seeing is that customers adopt the Open Toolkit when:

  • They intend to deploy onto multiple servers, and open source avoids licensing headaches.
  • The Open Toolkit provides a useful starting point for their output format.

Customers tend to adopt non-Open Toolkit solutions when:

  • They need attractive PDF. Getting this result from the Open Toolkit isn’t quite impossible, but it’s hard. There are other options that are faster, cheaper, and easier.
  • They need a format that the Open Toolkit doesn’t provide. The most common requirement here is web-based help. Getting from the XHTML output in the Open Toolkit over to a sophisticated tri-pane help system with table of contents, index, and search….well, let’s just say that it keeps me gainfully employed. AIR is another platform that we need to support.

The software vendors seem to be encouraging this trend. In part, I think they would like to find some way to get lock-in on DITA content. Consider the following:

  • Adobe FrameMaker can output lovely PDF from DITA content through FrameMaker (no Open Toolkit). You can also use the Open Toolkit to generate formats such as HTML.
  • ePublisher Pro uses the Open Toolkit under the covers, but provides a GUI that attempts to hide the complexities.
  • MadCap’s software will support DITA (initially) by importing DITA content and letting you publish through MadCap’s existing publishing engine.
  • Several other vendors provide support for publishing DITA, but do not use the Open Toolkit at all.

The strategy of supporting DITA structure through a proprietary publishing engine actually makes a lot of sense to me. From a customer point of view, you can:

  • Set up an XML-based authoring workflow
  • Manage XML content

It’s not until you’re ready to publish that you move into a proprietary environment.

To me, the interesting question is this: Will the use of proprietary publishing engines be a temporary phenomenon, or will the Open Toolkit eventually displace them in the same way that DITA is displacing custom XML structure?

Sarah O'Keefe
December 1, 2008
Read More
Localization

We’ve been localised

Over the years, I have worked on manuals that were translated, and I have helped clients with their localization processes. Despite those experiences, I’ve never been part of a project in which US English was localized (well, localised) into UK English–until now.

Cherryleaf has adapted material from our Technical Writing 101 book in its new Basics of Technical Authoring self-paced course. Cherryleaf is based in the UK, so the course is tailored for those accustomed to British English, but the content is helpful to any English speaker who wants to learn the basics of technical writing. Cherryleaf has also included exercises so students can get some experience applying the techniques explained in the course content.

(Full disclosure: Scriptorium is compensated for sales of Cherryleaf’s course.)

Alan Pringle
November 21, 2008
Read More
DITA Industry insights

Looking Fear Straight in the Eye

Have you ever been really scared? I don’t mean just the Halloween kinda scared, but really scared. That’s how I felt at the Burlington Marriott when the hotel employee delivered the box containing the workbooks for my Introduction to XMetaL and DITA workshop. He stood in the doorway, smiled, and handed me a very beat up, bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated FedEx box.

The box looked like the driver had had a flat on Route 128 and used it to prevent the truck from rolling back while jacking up the front end. It was nice and damp too. With much trepidation, I opened the box and — to my relief — found that the materials were undamaged. Whew.

Following that, Wednesday’s all-day workshop on XMetaL and DITA was smooth sailing. OK, we had a bit of a problem with powerstrips, but the helpful DocTrain folks got that taken care of. In retrospect, many of the questions I fielded in the workshop weren’t so much about DITA or XMetaL itself. Instead many of the questions were about generating output. The fact is that unless you’re willing to spend some quality time with CSS and the DITA Open Toolkit, your output from DITA will look very generic. XMetaL has a number of hooks that ease some of the pain in generating XHTML output. But even those hooks won’t save you from FO issues if you want to generate PDF output.

In my presentation on Thursday comparing XMetaL and FrameMaker support in DITA, the questions returned once again to output. Of course, this time the focus was on using FrameMaker 8.0 as a PDF engine. In workflows where content is created and maintained in XML, but then has to be delivered in PDF (or print), FrameMaker 8.0 looks like an attractive possibility. There are a few flaws in this solution (such as translating xref elements for intra-document links into live links in PDF), but users are closer to a solution than they were six months ago.

We’ve posted PDFs of the slides from both sessions on SlideShare.

You can find the Introduction to XMetaL and DITA workshop slides at:

http://www.slideshare.net/Scriptorium/xmetal-dita-workshop-presentation

The slides for the session on DITA Support in FrameMaker and XMetaL are at:

http://www.slideshare.net/Scriptorium/dita-support-in-framemaker-and-xmetal-presentation

When you’re done browsing the slides, take a look on our site for information about how we can help you with your FrameMaker, XMetaL, OT, PDF problems.

It’s not that scary.

Simon Bate
November 3, 2008
Read More
Structured content

The Golden Rule of technical writing

I stumbled upon a list of tips for technical writers, and I was glad to see tip 7:

Understand Your Target Audience. Write and revise your content according to how your target audience thinks and understands things. Getting into their heads–knowing how their minds process information, how they might react, what they feel is important–allows you to customize your content to tailor-fit their needs.

I would put that tip at the top of the list, but that’s a quibble.

Sarah and I mention the topic of audience a lot in our Technical Writing 101 book; I think it is the most important thing for writers to remember as they create content. You can have an elegant XML-based publishing system that generates all sorts of output with the push of a button, but if your information doesn’t address the needs of users, all the work put into the content and into the process itself is wasted.

That waste becomes even more acutely painful when a user abandons your information and finds helpful content on a blog, wiki, or forum. The contributors of that information probably don’t know (or even care) that they followed the Golden Rule of technical documentation: Audience, audience, audience.

Alan Pringle
October 6, 2008
Read More
DITA

An incomplete puzzle: DITA OT stylesheets

A recent post on the dita-users Yahoo group asked how to customize the DITA OT stylesheets in view of the fact that there isn’t much documentation available.

From my work customizing and otherwise perverting the DITA OT, I can sympathize with these frustrations. When I started investigating OT customizations, I found many well-crafted tutorials on how to customize and specialize the OT. These were a great starting point, but they only got me so far. In its current state, the documentation is an incomplete jigsaw puzzle; the trees and buildings are filled in nicely, but the sky is still waiting for someone with patience. (Block that metaphor!)

Because there is no documentation available at the individual template level, you need to reconsider the task at hand. I look on it as debugging, decoding, or sleuthing. With that in mind, I find the following to be very useful:

  • Find a good visual grep-like utility. I use AgentRansack, a free version of FileLocator Pro (it’s free and amazing). This enables me to locate all files that contain a particular class identifier. The visual aspect of the tool allows me to see the context quickly.
  • Use a programmer’s editor that supports XML and XSL. We use Oxygen. Not only does it help check validity and closes tags automatically, but it also provides a handy sidebar that lists the templates and their modes.
  • Liberally spread <xsl:comment> or <xsl:message> directives through the stylesheets you’re examining. That helps figure out where you are. Use <xsl:value-of> or <xsl:copy-of> to figure out what you’ve got.
  • Once you’ve figured out what happens in one of the OT templates, add comments. Now the next time you come back to it, you won’t waste time.

Probably the best form of documentation that the OT could provide here is additional comments in the stylesheets, particularly about the order of processing. I find I add many comments about where to find the template that handles nodes from an <xsl:apply-templates> directive.

One further note. On Tuesday, September 23, I’ll be presenting the third of our “Best Practices in Structured Authoring and Publishing” joint Webinar series with JustSystems. In this presentation I’ll describe a number of approaches you can use to customize DITA OT output. For more information, visit the JustSystems web site.

Simon Bate
September 5, 2008
Read More
DITA

The hidden costs of DITA

Originally published in STC Intercom, April 2008

DITA is a free, pre-made XML document structure. That statement can lead to a few erroneous assumptions: if it’s free, then it will cut down on costs, and if it’s pre-made, it will cut down on labor. There are several things to consider when choosing a DITA solution. Does your staff have the skills to author in a DITA environment? Will additional training be required? Does DITA even match your content model, and if it doesn’t, is it worth the effort to change?

Sarah’s conclusion? “DITA may be free, but it’s not cheap.”

Sarah O'Keefe
April 19, 2008
Read More
Brand credibility Business case/ROI Structured content

Content creation isn’t just for tech writers

We’ve seen an increase in the number of clients who need documentation processes that include input from part-time contributors (particularly engineers). XML-based workflows make it easier to handle this sort of input. Part-time contributors can enter their information into forms or can edit XML documents in an editor that doesn’t require them to know a thing about publishing tools.

UC Irvine seems to have picked up on this trend in collaboration: the school’s extension program just announced a technical writing class for engineers:

“This course is designed to provide students with writing skills tailored for the science and engineering fields and to correct common problems,” said Jessica Scully, M.J., instructor of the course. “It covers the importance of writing for a particular audience, and applies journalism skills to help students effectively create a focused and concise document.”

The benefits of such a program go beyond engineering. Improvement in the quality of developers’ writing would likely mean a reduction in the cost of creating a more unified voice in content (which in turn would lead to a smoother localization process). And last but not least, the end users (internal or external) would get better documentation.

This class could also help engineers gain an appreciation of the skill sets technical writers bring to an organization. That being said, it would be unfortunate if a company made the short-sighted mistake of thinking that sending engineers to a class like this would transform them into instant technical communicators.

Alan Pringle
February 27, 2008
Read More
DITA DITA XML—authors Structured content

When is XML the wrong answer?

Originally published in STC Intercom, November 2007

XML can benefit a publishing workflow in many ways: improving content reuse, consistency, and potentially automating much of the process. That all sounds wonderful, but XML is not the logical answer for everyone.

Implementing a structured authoring solution requires a significant change from the familiar desktop publishing routine to new tools, technologies, and processes. Switching to XML is going to cost time and money. Depending on your needs, it may not be the most efficient solution.

Sarah O'Keefe
November 19, 2007
Read More
Change management Structured content

The Age of … Expertise?

Over on O’Reilly’s Radar blog, Andy Oram has a fascinating article about the demise (!) of the Information Age and what will be next:

[T]he Information Age was surprisingly short. In an age of Wikipedia, powerful search engines, and forums loaded with insights from volunteers, information is truly becoming free (economically), and thus worth even less than agriculture or manufacturing. So what has replaced information as the source of value?The answer is expertise. Because most activities offering a good return on investment require some rule-breaking–some challenge to assumptions, some paradigm shift–everyone looks for experts who can manipulate current practice nimbly and see beyond current practice. We are all seeking guides and mentors.

What comes after the information age? (be sure to read the comments, too)

It’s an interesting idea, but I don’t think we’re getting away from the Information Age into the Expertise Age. After all, expertise is just a specialized (useful!) form of information.

In the comments, Tim O’Reilly points out that the real change is in how information is gathered and distributed with “the rise of new forms of computer mediated aggregators and new forms of collective curation and communication.”

I believe that we are still firmly in the Information Age because information has not yet become a commodity product. There is, however, clearly a shift happening in how information is created and delivered. I think it’s helpful to look at communication dimensions:

  • Traditional technical writing is one-to-many. One person/team writes, many people consume it.
  • Wikis are many-to-many. Many people write; many people use the information.
  • Mailing lists are many-to-one. Many people respond to one persons’ question.
  • Technical support is one-to-one. One person calls; one person responds.

Technical support is the most expensive option; it’s also often the most relevant. Technical writing is more efficient (because the answer to the question is provided just once), but also less personal and therefore less relevant.

Many technical writers are concerned about losing control over their content. For an example of the alarmist perspective, read Joanne Hackos’s recent article on wikis. Then, be sure to read Anne Gentle’s eponymous rebuttal on The Content Wrangler.

Keep in mind, though, that you can’t stop people from creating wikis, mailing lists, third-party books, forums, or anything else. You cannot control what people say about your products, and it’s possible that the “unauthorized” information will reach a bigger audience than the Official Documentation(tm). You can attempt to channel these energies into productive information, but our new information age is the Age of Uncontrolled Information.

Furthermore, the fact that people are turning to Google to find information says something deeply unflattering about product documentation, online help, and other user assistance. Why is a Google search more compelling than looking in the help?

Sarah O'Keefe
September 5, 2007
Read More