[comp.sys.hp] 7.0 Documentation

clarke@hpfcmgw.HP.COM (Clarke Echols) (05/29/90)

> OK, time to spout off...
> 
> Something I've been saying ever since IBM started this
> shift to Puny Pages is that they're inappropriate.  In my
> opinion they're user-hostile.
> 
> a)  Quantities of info that once were neatly contained in
>     an 8.5 x 11 page are now spread over 2 or even 3 pages.
>     It's more awkward to read in this way, especially for
>     reference info.

Not quite; the pages were typeset 8.5x11-inches then photoreduced to
7.0x8.5.

> b)  Limited page area also makes it harder to WRITE good
>     manuals.  This is especially true when tables, diagrams,
>     or photos are appropriate.  Page size often prohibits
>     using the figure that would be appropriate; text referring
>     to figures often has to be on a different page when using
>     the Puny format, forcing readers to do page flipping
>     routines.

See a).  In fact, when we typeset the next HP-UX Reference at 100% of
printed size (still 7.0x8.5), we will have MORE on each page due to
better use of space between lines.

> c)  Need to copy something beyond 1 page for any reason?
>     Have (tedious) fun.  Perhaps the greatest virtue of puny pages
>     is that they help a lot to enforce copyrights.  But it
>     DOES sometimes happen in real life that an immediate need
>     arises to copy some section of some manual.

Copyrights had nothing to do with size.  Strictly a matter of convenience.
If you copy 2000 pages on a copier at 3 cents per page, that's as much as 
a complete new manual without any compensation for your time which would
be several hours and would fill at least 4 large notebooks.

> d)  Because the ratio of "overhead" (margins & such) to content
>     is low, puny pages force use of thicker binders.  Adding
>     some binder "overhead", efficiency of shelf usage is reduced.

Not really.  We expanded page size from half of an 8.5x11-inch (5.5x8.5)
to the 7.0x8.5 size so you'd have a wider gutter down the spine, and that
happened while still in looseleaf form.

>     There's a bookcase taller than I am on one wall of my office.
>     It's about 80% filled with manuals for HP-UX and products
>     that run on HP-UX.  With large pages, it would be about
>     50% filled with the same info.  With big pages and a more
>     appropriate OS, instead of a UNIX OS, it would probably be
>     about 25% full of equivalent manuals.

If you examine how the information is produced in hard-copy form,
you'd need MORE shelf space if we used 8.5 x 11; that is, unless you'd
like 8-point type with 9-point line spacing and line lengths of 7 inches
which would be a nightmare to read.
 
> e)  A lot of paper documentation should be obsoleted by purely
>     online documentation.

We've looked at hyper-text and other methods.  Still investigating.
However, some experienced users HATE on-line because you can't scan as
fast as on a printed page.  When one is highly familiar with a book, it
is easier to find stuff when you know it's on the right-hand page about
2/3 of the way down the page.  You can also get there faster when the
book is bound.  Try that with a screen-oriented system.

When we tested prototypes of the bound brick, we saw a noticeable shift
from on-line to bound for the preferred access method among several who
had previously used on-line because it was more convenient than the
loose-leaf version.

> But that does NOT mean UNIX man pages,
>     which are a bit crude for this sort of job.

Agreed.  Hyper-text and others are not well suited to manpages.  We
are looking at some improved access tools, however.

While it may seem somewhat arbitrary, most of the changes we've made
were carefully thought out before being implemented.  As for on-line,
we've looked at a lot of possibilities, but have not yet come up with
what we consider to be a fully satisfactory solution to many practical
problems in usability.

Clarke "bricktator (inside joke)" Echols

clarke@hpfcmgw.HP.COM (Clarke Echols) (05/29/90)

> I am going to upgrade the HP-UX(6.x level) of a HP9000-300 to 7.0 but not
> sure whether the original rmb(Rocky Mountain BASIC) will still work. Can
> anyone give me some suggestions?

We upgraded from 6.5 to 7.0 with no problems.

Clarke Echols
-------------