XML workflow: gathering specifications for output
It is a common stereotype that an XML workflow for content is rigid, unbending, and free of creativity.
It is a common stereotype that an XML workflow for content is rigid, unbending, and free of creativity.
How do you know it’s time to move to XML? Consult our handy list of indicators.
In a recent post on lean content strategy, I wrote about a focus on waste reduction:
After creating a nice automated XML-based process, waste in formatting is eliminated, and we declare victory and go home. Unfortunately, the organization is now producing irrelevant content faster, and the content organization is now positioned as only a cost center.
Is your content perceived as a commodity?
The roles and responsibilities in an XML (and/or DITA) environment are a little different than in a traditional page layout environment. Figuring out where to move people is a key part of your implementation strategy.
Companies experience their greatest growing pains when expanding business to global markets. It’s an exciting time but can also be a rude awakening as differing local requirements emerge for both product and content.
On the content side, keeping all of these requirements in check can be a daunting task. Proper planning and execution is critical for meeting these requirements and delivery dates, and for keeping your sanity.
Your industrial products become part of well-oiled machines. Unfortunately, your workflow for developing product literature may not be as well-oiled.
What’s the first thing that comes to your mind when I say “XML and content”? If large technical documents and back-end databases pop into your mind, you’re in good company. But many content-heavy groups can benefit from adopting XML. Marketing is one of these groups.
In this webcast, Sarah O’Keefe provides a basic introduction to XML and explains how it could affect your content creation efforts. This presentation emphasizes the overall concept and has minimal technical content.
Everyone wants to know how much an XML workflow is going to cost. For some reason, our prospective clients are rarely satisfied with the standard consultant answer of “It depends.”
This post outlines typical XML projects at four different budget levels: less than $50,000, $150K, $500K, and more than $500K.
The companies described are fictional composites. You should not make any major budgetary (or life) decisions based on these rough estimates. Your mileage may vary. Insert any other disclaimers I have forgotten.
Wondering about a transition from desktop publishing to XML publishing for your content? Check out our new business case calculator.
You’ve made the transition to an XML workflow for publishing your technical content, converted all of your legacy content, and started authoring in the new system, as discussed in part 1 of this post. Although you now have a much better outlook on sustainability, you’re still facing a problem: your content creators are having trouble with the idea of separating content from formatting.
Your publishing workflow has been the same for years, but new technology, different customer requirements, and company growth are making you realize you might need a change. Your print-based processes won’t always be sustainable, and XML is looking like a possibility for the future. There’s just one problem: you have thousands of pages of legacy content that you’ll need to convert, and it’s not exactly XML-friendly.
The basic idea of structured content—separate storage of content and formatting—is changing production workflows and, increasingly, content creation tools. In FrameMaker 12, Adobe joins the party on the tech comm side.
“It’s not about the tools.” Except when it’s totally about the tools.
I’m about to replace an old toilet, not-so-affectionately nicknamed the Lazy River.
Reuse and automated formatting are the most common justifications for XML, but recently, we have heard a new reason from several customers: rebranding.
The mantra of XML is that you separate content from formatting. Authors do content; formatting happens later. During a panel discussion at last week’s (excellent) UA Europe conference, I realized that this is only half the story.
Simon Bate provides a planning framework for implementing an XML-based structured authoring environment.
“What a curious feeling!” said Alice; “I must be shutting up like a telescope.”
And so it was indeed: she was now only ten inches high, and her face brightened up at the thought that she was now the right size for going though the little door into that lovely garden.
Lewis Carroll in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland
The slides from my tekom/tcworld session on the economics of information are below.
A wise man once told me that the goal of marketing is to frame the question so that what you are selling is the best possible answer. In the world of tech comm publishing, the default question has been: “What tool should I use?”
Most of the DITA work that we do at Scriptorium is “full-on” implementation. That is, our customer decides to move their content from [something that is not DITA] to a DITA-based system. There are variations on the theme, of course, but nearly all of our customers are concerned about managing localization costs and increasing content reuse.