horen@cadence.com (Jonathan Horen) (03/26/90)
In article <104458@linus.UUCP> jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes: >My personal preference (regardless of the paper size) is for loose-leaf >format for any manual which I'm likely to need on a routine basis. Two > [Stuff deleted] > >How sayeth the jury? Do you prefer loose-leaf, perfect/staple bound, >or hardback for documentation? An excellent follow-up question (also in its own right) to the issue of documentation size. This juror is of these opinions: LOOSE-LEAF FORMAT I like loose-leaf because (a) you can add change pages/remove outdated pages easily; and (b) since the pages are removable, it's easy to copy them -- especially if you have a sophisticated copier with sheet-feed and double-sided capabilities. I dislike loose-leaf because (a) the pages inevitably tear at the holes; and (b) people inevitably decide that "bigger is better", and package the documentation in loose-leaf binders that have 3"-, 4"-, or more "-wide spines, permitting them to fit several manuals/binder -- who can handle 7lb loose-leaf binders comfortably? PERFECT/STAPLED FORMAT I dislike perfect/stapled bindings for technical documentation because (a) they don't stay open unless you place some sort of weight on the pages or forceably fold/crease them, which breaks the binding and shortens their life-span; (b) the inner page margin is inevitably too small, so it becomes difficult to read material, especially if the manual is thick; (c) because of (b), it's usually difficult/impossible to cleanly/accuratly photocopy these manuals; and (d) because of (a) and (b), these manuals usually remain on the shelf, and employees/users end-up taking much longer to master the hardware/software or doing so incompletely. HARDBACK I dislike hardback bindings for technical documentation because (a) the cost is prohibitive in small runs (perhaps even in large runs, given the thin profit-margins in this cutthroat business); and because of most of the reasons I listed for perfect/stapled format. I'd like to offer another book-binding format: spiral. SPIRAL I like the spiral-bound format for technical documentation because (a) the cost is usually no more than for loose-leaf; (b) the manual pages open easily and lie-flat willingly; (c) the manual pages can be photocopied easily and accuratly, even if the manual is thick; (d) since there is no heavy binder, the manual is light-weight, which also allows you to make it thicker (more white-space without guilt!); and (e) reasons (a) through (d) encourage employees/users to use the manual. I dislike the spiral-bound format because (a) you cannot add change pages/remove updated pages; and (b) a rough user can tear the pages at the holes. SUMMARY: I say: forget about the perfect/stapled and hardback formats. I say: use the loose-leaf format for documenting (a) `evolving' products (those that are marketed not-IAW the "Paul Masson Principle", i.e., `buggy' products that are sold `before their time' and that will require `polishing' :-{) in the not-to-distant future); (b) products in which revisions must appear as change-pages within the documentation, rather than as release notes (reasons of physical safety, data corruption/loss, etc); and (c) products used in harsh work conditions, so that the binder will protect the document against the elements. NOTE: With regard to (c), above, I would suggest using heavier stock and/or coating the pages after printing for greater protection. It may be expensive, but machines used in harsh conditions, such as factories, are often made dangerous, and having a usable manual handy can be the difference between `forewarned-and- forearmed' and death/disability. I say: use the spiral format for documenting all products not defined by (a), (b), or (c), above. MY PET PEEVE: 6.5x8-inch, loose-leaf bound manuals, with slip-cases. *Nothing* stays on the shelf like these babys. They cost more $$, so your product costs more $$ and you may sell less, and their `non-use' ends up costing your customer $$ (initially, as well as in increased learning-time/impaired performance/damaged equipment/damaged employees). I guess I better put a disclaimer here, since my employer and I view the world of TechPubs through different filters. So, "The opinions expressed here are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the corporate philosophy of Cadence Design Systems, Inc." On the other hand, why would a `sarariman' like me be posting a follow-up article to this newsgroup on a Sunday morning, if not to express HIS own opinion! +------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+ | _J_o_n_a_t_h_a_n_ _B_._ _H_o_r_e_n_ _ _ _ _ | | . | Lilmod Al Manat Laasot | | _C_a_d_e_n_c_e_ _D_e_s_i_g_n_ _S_y_s_t_e_m_s | |__ (/\ \ / |__ Lilmod Al Manat Lelamed | | | _/ / _\ _\/ _/ Lilmod Al Manat Lichtov | | _h_o_r_e_n_@_c_a_d_e_n_c_e_._c_o_m | -: - | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
andrew@alice.UUCP (Andrew Hume) (03/29/90)
we have been thru this before... again, smythe-sewn perfect binding opens easily to any page and stays open. the ninth edition manuals were done this way (as have the new tenth edition manuals) and over 3 years of abuse in the unix room, one book suffered damage (out of several). spiral bound books are sort of ok, but are not robust and more importantly, they won't stand up on a book shelf.