SDL announced that Adobe Systems is providing all its Adobe FrameMaker 9 users with SDL AuthorAssistant, the client component of SDL Global Authoring Management System. Adobe FrameMaker 9 software is an authoring and publishing solution that allows technical communicators to author, structure, review and publish complex and lengthy content. Starting with FrameMaker 9 and Adobe Technical Communications Suite 2, every user of FrameMaker can install SDL AuthorAssistant as part of the Adobe FrameMaker 9 environment, empowering them to create content for global markets and improve the quality of their content. SDL AuthorAssistant ensures adherence to style guide rules and consistent use of terminology. The software is also able to check against previously translated content, so that companies with global audiences can improve content reuse and reduce the downstream costs of localizing content. http://www.adobe.com, http://www.sdl.com
Month: March 2009 (Page 5 of 5)
Percussion Software introduced its latest release, Percussion Content Management System 6.6. CM System 6.6 goes beyond the traditional process-driven “author and publish” paradigm and helps users harvest and publish content. CM System, formerly named Rhythmyx helps users evaluate and harvest the most powerful content, make changes and publish as business dictates. Whether the priority is to quickly test a campaign, tap into user-community sentiment, or readily repurpose content, Percussion CM System 6.6 helps manage content for information intense businesses. When viewing a page from a browser or within the WebAnalytics solution, clicking the Linkback button will take the user to the desired page, where edits can be made.The user may then rapidly add and remove page elements in bulk, change page designs (templates), move page elements and visually compare to prior versions of the page, all from a single, purpose-built interface. Once changes have been completed, the user can bypass workflow and staging and instantly publish to the live site. CM System 6.6 includes a new search function using the Lucene open source search engine. CM System 6.6 is available for immediate delivery to new customers, and available as an upgrade for existing customers. http://www.percussion.com
I’ve often been curious about why companies frequently procure enterprise applications used by their competitors, destined to be followers instead of leaders. It seems to reflect a lack of imagination but, more importantly, a lack of confidence that one could select another solution with more possibilities for enhancing the organization’s competitiveness.
Look at three popular concepts about search:
- The search box for keyword search is dead or only marginally useful
- Professionals spend 10 – 20% of their workday searching (and often unsuccessfully)
- Vast amounts of critical unstructured content is un-discoverable in most enterprises leaving organizations at risk in litigation, weak in leveraging fundamental knowledge and research for innovation, poor at customer support because known solutions can’t be found, and competitive intelligence is scarce to unearth because so much of it lies hidden in desktop email in-boxes.
If we accept these propositions, doesn’t it say something about the “leaders” in the search industry that we believe and accept so little from search?
Why do most organizations not try to solve at least one of these problems by seeking solutions that will save hundreds of thousands of dollars in wasted labor, litigation costs, R&D expense, or lost customers due to poor service? Why do companies seek to procure search applications from companies that have been around for a decade or more, licensing evolutionary products, not revolutionary ones? Why would a company ignore innovative new products in favor of products that have given “search” a bad reputation? Why do organizations make hundred thousand dollar, or more, procurements without expending a few hundred dollars on documented product comparisons, and instead rely on a few widely published charts with less than a page or two on each product?
Most important, why are organizations not seeking search applications that will give them an edge by uncovering a nugget that will get a product to market faster, help marketing groups position a product better against the competition, or give support services representatives superior tools for getting information back to customers instantly with a proven solution to a query? Where is the will to apply search technology more astutely than your competitors in every area of your business? Why is search not expected to perform flawlessly and be as ubiquitous as any other software tool in your workflow? It does not have to be a poor performing stepchild but it does require its own experts to be well executed. Come to think of it, I have never seen a help wanted posting requiring expertise in search technology implementation. Hmmm…
There are well over a hundred viable search applications and hundreds of other applications that have search embedded for point solutions. You may need to acquire, implement and maintain a number of products across the enterprise to realize all the benefits search can bring but these products can work together, just as other components of a well-run enterprise do. At a time when organizations are cutting employees, appropriate search solutions may just offset the loss of expertise by uncovering at least some of the lost assets left behind.
If you know me you will realize that I tend to revisit XML authoring tools and processes frequently. It is one of my favorite topics. The intersection of structured tools and messy human thinking and behavior is an area fraught with usability issues, development challenges, and careful business case thinking. And therefore, a topic ripe for discussion.
I had an interesting conversation with a friend about word processors and XML editors the other day. His argument was that the word processing product model may not be the best, and certainly isn’t the only, way to prepare and manage structured content.
A word processor is software that has evolved to support the creation of documents. The word processing software model was developed when people needed to create documents, and then later added formatting and other features. This model is more than 25 years old (I remember using a word processor for the first time in college in 1980).
Of course it was logical to emulate how typewriters worked since the vast majority of information at the time was destined for paper documents. Now word processors include features for writing, editing, reviewing, formatting, and limited structural elements like links, indexes, etc. Again, all very document oriented. The content produced may be reused for other purposes if transformed in a post process (e.g., it could output HTML & PDF for Web, breaking into chunks for a repository or secondary use, etc.), but there are limits and other constraints, especially if your information is primarily designed to be consumed in print or document form.
It is easy to think of XML-structured editors, and the word processor software model they are based upon, as the most likely way to create structured content. But in my opinion, structured editors pay too much homage to word processing features and processes. I also think too many project teams assume that the only way to edit XML content is in an XML document editor. Don’t get me wrong, many people have successfully deployed XML editors and achieved targeted business goals, myself included, but I can point out many instances where an alternative approach to editing content might be more efficient.
Database tools that organize the information logically and efficiently are not likely to store that data as documents. For instance, you may have an financial system with a lot of info in relational fields that is extracted to produce printable documents like monthly statements, invoices, etc.
Or software manuals that are customized for specific configurations using reusable data objects and related document maps instead maintaining the information as static, hierarchically-organized documents.
Or aircraft information that needs to match the configuration of a specific plane or tail number, selected from a complete library of data objects stored centrally.
Or statutes that start formatted as bills, then later appear as enacted laws, then later yet again as published, codified statutes, each with their own formatting and structural peccadilloes.
Or consider a travel guide publisher that collects information on thousands of hotels, restaurants, attractions, and services in dozens of countries and cities. Sure, the content is prepared with the intent of publishing it in a book, but it is easy to see how it can be useful for other uses, including providing hotel data to travel-related Web sites, or building specialized, custom booklets for special needs (e.g., a local guide for a conference, guides to historical neighborhoods, etc.).
In these examples of what some might call database publishing, system designers need to ask them selves what would be the best tool for creating and maintaining the information. They are great candidates for a database, some application dialogs and wizards, and some extraction and transformation applications to feed Web and other platforms for consumption by users. They may not even involve an editor per se, but might rely entirely a Wiki or other dialog for content creation and editing.
Word processors require a mix of skills, including domain expertise on the subject being written about, grammar and editing, and some formatting & design, use of the software itself, etc. While I personally believe everyone, not just teachers and writers, should be skilled in writing well and making documents look legible and appealing, I realize many folks are best suited for other roles. That is why we divide labor into roles. Domain experts (e.g., lawyers, aircraft engineers, scientists and doctors, etc.) are usually responsible for accuracy and quality of the ideas and information, while editorial and product support people clean up the writing and formatting and make it presentable. So, for domain experts, it may be more efficient to provide a tool that only manages the content creation, structuring, linking, organization, etc. with limited word processing capabilities, and leave the formatting and organization to the system or another department or automated style sheets.
In my mind, a Wiki is a combination of text functionality and database management features that allow content to be created and managed in a broader Web content platform (which also may include static pages, search interfaces, pictures, PDFs, etc.). In this model, the Web is the primary use and printing is secondary. Domain experts are not bothered with concepts like page layout, running heads, tables of content generation, justification & hyphenation, etc., much to the delight of the domain experts!
I am bullish on Wikis as content creation and management tools, even when the content is destined for print. I have seen some that hide much of the structure and technical “connective tissue” from the author, but produce well formatted, integrated information. The blogging tool I am using to create this article is one example of a Wiki-like interface that has a few bells and whistles for adding structure (e.g., keywords) dedicated to a specific content creation purpose. It only emulates word processing slightly with limited formatting tools, but is loaded with other features designed to improve my blog entries. For instance, I can pick a keyword from a controlled taxonomy from a pull-down list. And all within a Web browser, not a fat client editor package. This tool is optimized for making blog content, but not for, let’s say, scientific papers or repair manuals. It is targeted for a specific class of users, bloggers. Similarly, XML-editors as we have come to know them, are more adept at creating documents and document chunks than other interfaces.
Honestly, on more than one occasion I have pounded a nail with a wrench, or tightened a bolt with the wrong kind of pliers. Usually I get the same results, but sometimes it takes longer or has a less desirable result than if I had used a more appropriate tool. The same is true for editing tools.
On a final note, forgive me if I make a gratuitous plug, but authoring approaches and tools will be the subject of a panel I am chairing at the Gilbane San Francisco conference in early June if you want to hear more. </>
DPCI announced it has joined the Acquia Partner program at the Platinum level. Through the program, DPCI will expand its open source content management offerings by developing and delivering custom publishing solutions utilizing Acquia’s value-added products and services for the Drupal social publishing system. Additionally the program allows DPCI to leverage the Acquia Network for support, site management, and remote network services. http://drupal.org, http://acquia.com, http://www.databasepublish.com
JustSystems announced XMetaL Reviewer 5.5, the latest version of the company’s collaborative XML document reviewing software. Reinforcing the central role of document review and collaboration in the overall authoring process, XMetaL Reviewer lets subject matter experts and others contribute content directly to the documents under review. The latest version of XMetaL Reviewer also gains usability, connectivity, integration, and administration enhancements. XMetaL Reviewer moves the document review process beyond a read-only exercise that prevents reviewers from suggesting detailed edits to the documents being reviewed. Now, reviewers can actively contribute new content and rewrite entire sections of a document. Using the addendum editor, XMetaL Reviewer users with no knowledge of XML can contribute structured content, insert images, and create lists, tables, and whole sections for consideration as document modifications. In addition to harnessing the expertise of document reviewers, XMetaL Reviewer offers users a consolidated view of all their suggested changes which are displayed to all reviewers in real time, as the changes are being made. An audit trail tracks all document changes, and an inline chat feature lets reviewers discuss content changes in real time. XMetaL Reviewer 5.5 is available today with prices starting at $15,000 for the server and five concurrent user licenses. Additional concurrent licenses are $2,500 for five users. http://www.justsystems.com
The conference session descriptions have now been posted at including bi-directional links with the schedule. The program (and the page) are about 90% complete – there are a couple of session descriptions to be added and not all speakers are listed yet. The speaker bio page is also posted at with many of the speakers listed. Bi-directional inks between the speaker bios are conference sessions are being worked on now. And attendee, speaker, and press registration are open at: .
