[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Saturday, April 10, 2004 6:34 AM
Amelia A. Lewis Wrote:
> the tool set not only buffers the folks who need buffers, but reduces the
opportunity
> for advanced learning in that direction (knowledge of the whole process,
> and of the underlying tools and document definitions).
Just a side note to an interesting thread: The environment I work in sounds
very similar to Henrik's. I am incredibly thankful that I began in this
environment. If I had been tossed into a plain text editor when I first
started as a tech writer, I probably would have run screaming into the
night.
Now, I prefer a text editor for my own work, but most of our authors/editors
prefer the more structured editing environment. Well, once they reconciled
themselves to using markup instead of the word processor free-for-all. :-)
The point I want to make about the quote above is that this environment does
*not* reduce the opportunity for advanced learning. I'm now the XML analyst
here, do data modeling, DTD design, have become a programmer and do
translation scripting, and have a far deeper knowledge of and involvement
with "the whole process, and the underlying tools and document definitions."
The only real gaps in training have been budget-related; no money for
training. That is beginning to change, so the opportunity to learn and grow
is increasing even more.
I guess my overall take on the whole topic is: It depends on what you are
trying to do and who is trying to do it. Some environments don't need to be
rigid and well-formed is enough. Other environments do need more structure
(we publish drug information; flaws in content and even some markup can lead
to legal issues). I won't rehash all the arguments; Ari Nordstrom's and Len
Bullard's earlier responses addressed much of what I would have to say.
____________________________________
Douglas Rudder drudder@drugfacts.com
"Never apologize for an informed opinion." -- Len Bullard
|
