Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
The current model is:
Author creates document and submits for review.
Reviewer makes changes with changes tracked.
Author usually reviews changes and comments and makes changes accordingly.
This does not sound like a WIKI process because it is not easy to track
changes.
If, however, you want a model such as:
Author creates WIKI content.
Reviewer makes changes, but they are not tracked/easily seen (I can see
the history, but this is not really the same).
Good point. You run into problems working with many reviewers, though.
Author has a more difficult time seeing the changes.
It is simply a different process (without commenting on the final product).
I want a WIKI for easy searching, but I can get that by simply
converting to HTML and placing static pages on the internet.
I'd want wiki for collaboration and easy feedback. It allows
quick response and many reviewers. Feedback is most urgently
needed for many of the documentation pieces.
I agree that some of the wiki concepts don't fit too well to many
of the processes of classical book authoring. So a 1-1 mapping of
those processes will probably not be successful.
Using a wiki as a collaborative authoring environment with
some aspects of a content management tool is a brave approach
and it may not work for those document types? Maybe we need less
books and more modular content? I am unsure.
BTW: Do we have any survey data as to what sort of
documentation is preferred by end users?
I'd like to ask you to follow what's going on on the wiki
in the next months while we are piloting some guides and
give feedback there.
Thanks
Frank
--
The OOo Documentation Project:
SIGN UP - PARTICIPATE - CONTRIBUTE
IT'S FREE! NO OBLIGATIONS!
http://documentation.openoffice.org
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation
