Thursday, April 13, 2006
Tech writers and free/Open Source software
Most technical writing shops use proprietary tools like FrameMaker, WebWorks, and RoboHelp. Only a small number use the free and Open Source (FOSS) tools out there. This article looks at why tech writers aren't using FOSS tools, and tries to debunk some of the myths surrounding FOSS technical writing tools.
Being both a FOSS advocate and professional technical writer, I don't agree with all of the article's conclusions. But this passage is particularly telling and hits one problem squarely on the head:
While I don't find that FOSS tech writing tools are the equal of their commercial counterparts, I do think that many of them are better than "just good enough." And there's nothing wrong with using a combination of FOSS and proprietary software -- for example, a DocBook authoring tool with the RenderX XEP to produce PDFs.
If more FOSS software would support DITA, then I think these tools might be able to gain acceptance in more tech writing shops.
Being both a FOSS advocate and professional technical writer, I don't agree with all of the article's conclusions. But this passage is particularly telling and hits one problem squarely on the head:
Most important of all, many tech writers are more tolerant of the shortcomings of proprietary software than of FOSS. Kim-Eng sees a similar trend in both FOSS and proprietary software, yet while it keeps him from using FOSS, it does not discourage him from using proprietary software. In the same way, few experienced technical writers would expect to learn FrameMaker overnight, but, when they have trouble finding a feature in OpenOffice.org Writer, they jump to the conclusion that it isn't there -- although it almost always is, unless it's online collaboration tools. Moreover, a few perceived flaws in Writer or perhaps a beta release can cause them to reject it, although they will go to great lengths to find workarounds for problems in Word. For many tech writers, the unspoken assumption is still that FOSS is inferior to proprietary software. As a result, they do not approach it with anything like the same willingness to learn.Tech writers are human beings. They've spent a lot of time and effort (and, in some cases, money) mastering the standard tools of the trade. So, it's not surprising that they'd be unwilling to change. On top of that, I have a feeling that most technical writers aren't aware of many of the FOSS tools out there.
While I don't find that FOSS tech writing tools are the equal of their commercial counterparts, I do think that many of them are better than "just good enough." And there's nothing wrong with using a combination of FOSS and proprietary software -- for example, a DocBook authoring tool with the RenderX XEP to produce PDFs.
If more FOSS software would support DITA, then I think these tools might be able to gain acceptance in more tech writing shops.
