![]() ![]() Hence, an organization must approach experts who can understand their requirements and suggest accordingly.įurthermore, one should also work with experts only for the integration of authoring tools and the implementation of the documentation process. Time and cost are the most crucial deciding factors for the authoring tool to be used. Similarly, when an organization needs to publish simultaneously across multiple screens, RoboHelp is referred to eliminate the need for developing the same content differently for different screens. It further enhances consistency in documents. It helps in optimizing the content when there is room for content reuse. To illustrate, our rich experience in DITA-XML authoring enables us to integrate FrameMaker with the client’s organization. We start by understanding the type and purpose of the documentation. Therefore, we invest a substantial amount of time in our interactions and engagements with clients. Importance of Choosing the Best Suited Authoring ToolĪt Metapercept, we understand that the wrong implementation of the documentation process can cost a considerable amount of profits to the organization. For this purpose, we offer consulting services to clients for integrating the best tool for their documentation process. So, while both these tools look very similar at the beginning, they serve different purposes for different organizations. Hence, the choice is likely to be RoboHelp if the organization wants to publish online help and FrameMaker for offline manuals and user guides. RoboHelp is more suitable for responsive HTML outputs, whereas FrameMaker generates superior level PDFs. Therefore, based on the length of most of the content to be published, an organization can make its decision.Īgain, one of the key decisions to make is whether the information will be published online or offline. ![]() ![]() To begin with, FrameMaker is suitable for lengthy and linked content pieces such as books whereas RoboHelp is generally preferred for short content for offering help. However, for advanced technical writers, there lie stark differences between the two. In these situations, our team emphasizes on the factors that influence the decision, including but not limited to:įor beginners, the two authoring tools might seem very similar. While choosing Adobe for their organization is not a difficult decision to make, the confusion starts when the comparison between the two authoring tools begins. This, in turn, has enabled us to understand the documentation requirements of the clients and suggest authoring tools based on that.Īdobe’s FrameMaker and RoboHelp are the two most commonly used authoring tools we offer training and implementation services for. We have trained staff, integrated tools, and implemented structured documentation processes in our client’s organizations. Metapercept’s team has gained expertise in technical writing over years. One of the key challenges faced by organizations is the decision regarding which authoring tool to use for publishing technical documentation. In addition, the rising number of technical communication channels has unveiled new opportunities and challenges for conveying information. The inclination towards standardized technical communication has increased manifolds in the past few years. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |