• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Private Content
The State of Structure
 

The State of Structure

on

  • 3,847 views

An overview of the results from a recent survey on structured authoring conducted by Scriptorium Publishing.

An overview of the results from a recent survey on structured authoring conducted by Scriptorium Publishing.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,847
Views on SlideShare
3,449
Embed Views
398

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
20
Comments
0

8 Embeds 398

http://www.scriptorium.com 388
http://www.slideshare.net 2
http://www.aesoft.com.ec 2
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 2
http://static.slidesharecdn.com 1
http://www.lmodules.com 1
http://dennis 1
http://web.archive.org 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    The State of Structure The State of Structure Presentation Transcript

    • The State of Structure Sarah O’Keefe scriptorium STC 2009, Atlanta
    • Structured authoring A publishing workflow that lets you define and automatically enforce consistent organization of information; implementations are generally based on Extensible Markup Language (XML). scriptorium
    • Background Ƿ Survey conducted in January and February 2009 Ƿ More than 600 responses Ƿ Participants recruited via our customer lists and thecontentwrangler.com scriptorium
    • Momentum for structured authoring Have implemented. 29.2% Currently implementing. 13.5% Will begin this year. 8.9% 1.0% Plan to start in 2010. Plan to start in 2011 or later. 0.6% Eventually. 9.4% Undecided. 21.1% Do not plan to implement. 16.2% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% scriptorium
    • Why structure? Past Consistency Present Future Reuse Localization Info exchange Compliance Personalization Cost/effort 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Most critical Not important scriptorium
    • DITA versus non-DITA Ƿ DITA implementers care (relatively) more about localization, cost/effort, and information Ƿ Most critical for DITA: reuse Ƿ Most critical for non-DITA: consistency scriptorium
    • Just say no to structure Ƿ 16 percent said No. Never. Nuh-uh. Ƿ Of those, 67 percent cited cost and time of implementation. Ƿ Other reasons: “staff will not adjust” (30+ percent) Ƿ Small writing groups, small content set, lack of control, management sees no value, current tools work scriptorium
    • Did it work? Yes. Factor Ranked 1 or 2 Achieved by Content reuse 60.7% 86.0% Consistency of documents 59.7% 91.5% Cost/effort of developing 28.2% 70.5% content Localization costs 25.2% 38.8% Information exchange 11.2% 45.7% Personalization/ 15.4% 38.8% customization of content Compliance with regulatory 9.4% 21.7% requirements scriptorium
    • DITA dominates structure adoption. DocBook DITA ATA Past Military standard Present Future S1000D Custom-developed Other Author-it 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percent scriptorium
    • DITA: Free but not cheap Ƿ Past implementers: same cost as other structures Ƿ Present implementers: DITA implementation is more expensive than other structures Ƿ Future implementers: estimate DITA at significantly lower cost than other structures. scriptorium
    • DITA cost factors (not survey data) Ƿ Specialization Ƿ Output requirements beyond Open Toolkit (especially web-based help) Ƿ Complex formatting in PDF Ƿ Legacy documentation Ƿ Large number of contributors scriptorium
    • Wishful thinking? 100 80 Outside resources Mostly outside 60 Percentage Mostly employees Employees 40 20 0 2–5 ppl. 16–50 ppl. 1 person 6–15 ppl. 50+ ppl. 2–5 ppl. 16–50 ppl. 1 person 6–15 ppl. 50+ ppl. 2–5 ppl. 16–50 ppl. 1 person 6–15 ppl. 50+ ppl Past Present Future scriptorium
    • Authoring tools Ƿ Winners: Arbortext, structured FrameMaker, XMetaL Ƿ Surprises: oXygen, Flare scriptorium
    • Market share Tool By implementation By seats Arbortext 10% 15% oXygen 18% 18% Structured 35% 23% FrameMaker XMetaL 37% 44% scriptorium
    • Change management Ƿ Over 30 percent of non-implementers said, “Staff will not adjust.” Ƿ Nearly 30 percent of past implementers had “some” or “a lot” of turnover. Ƿ Nearly 20 percent of current implementers had “some or “a lot” of turnover. scriptorium
    • “What was your biggest mistake?” Ƿ “Underestimated” Ƿ “Failure to plan” Ƿ “Insufficient analysis” Ƿ 37 percent cited project management problems, double the number of any other issue. scriptorium
    • How to improve outcomes? Private training. Ƿ Private, customized training increases implementation success. Ƿ But…it also correlates with change resistance! scriptorium
    • Recommendations Ƿ Planning! Ƿ Assess motivation Ƿ Provide training and education Ƿ Manage the development process Ƿ Address content migration Ƿ Choose tools and technologies wisely scriptorium
    • Questions? scriptorium
    • Contact information Ƿ Sarah O’Keefe Ƿ Scriptorium Publishing Ƿ www.scriptorium.com Ƿ okeefe@scriptorium.com Ƿ Scriptorium is exhibiting; stop by and visit us. scriptorium