Teach this old dog some new tricks

Dog working on laptop
©KariDesign, Fotolia

Learning to program for the first time at age 51 isn't easy, especially when you weren't a dazzling success in high school subjects that involved math, science and problem solving. Don’t misunderstand me. I excelled in my undergraduate and graduate studies, but I took subjects I understood almost intrinsically from my youth up. They didn't require me to leave my comfort zone to the extent I am leaving it now.

 

Computer science is no more challenging than my previous work. After all, it's not everyone who can sit through several years of music theory at the undergraduate and graduate level, and use it to create original compositions. Just the same, I'm challenging my mind in new ways, and I suspect this investment will eventually pay off.

Old dog shaking a hand
©fotowebbox, Fotolia

Speaking of science, they say you add more grooves to your brain with everything you learn. I’d like to see if my brain has become any groovier since starting this course. If I could visualize it, I'd also love to see the new synaptic connections I've developed since taking on computer science. So far, the best lesson I’ve learned is that an old dog can learn new tricks after all.

As our economy continues to recover, the importance of adding new skills will increase. Whether we’re welders or physicians, we’ll have to augment our core competencies with evolving knowledge and emerging technical skills. To be seen as indispensable, most of us will have to become resourceful problem solvers.

It’s no longer a secret that almost every modern career is either partially or totally vulnerable to change. No one is safe. Part of the problem is outsourcing. Companies want to pay as little as possible to get the job done. They don’t want to pay for benefits. The idea of seniority and automatic pay raises is no longer sacred. Here’s what they’re saying, “I love what you did yesterday, but now I need something new. By the way, can you do it with less? If not, I need someone who can.”

Another part of the equation is technology. Repetitive tasks weren’t just time consuming; they were expensive. Moreover, they were subject to human error. By contrast, stabilized computer programs removed miscalculations and mistakes. Consequently, companies replaced human effort with automation immediately after the technology behind it became inexpensive.

Dogs using human technology
©Roger costa Morera, Fotolia

Outsourcing and automation have driven many careers into obsolescence, not just in the United States, but around the world. It may seem cruel, but there is no end in sight for these trends. Many long-term careers are now exclusively the domain of computers, robots and programs. To overcome the double-edged sword of innovation, we’ll have to forge new careers and industries instead of falling back on traditional jobs. Future occupations must take advantage of our unique, heuristic capabilities as human beings.

Thinking outside the box
©masterzphotofo, Fotolia

As intimidating as progress may seem, it is no match for the human mind. The way to overcome this threat is to adapt the latest innovations to new uses. It’s time to think outside the box.

Note: All images in this blog are licensed to Bill Graham by Fotolia.

A key role in future web development: liberal arts

Note: My company, Idea, recently published one of my blogs on Web 3.0 at http://blog.idea.com/integration/the-promises-and-perils-of-web-3-0/. Other blogs on this topic are coming down the pike.

One of the most frustrating experiences in writing about any technology platform is to find out about it years after its introduction. This painful reality has been my experience with Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. I must have been asleep when these terms were introduced several years ago. On the other hand, marketers are still trying to make sense of Web 2.0 and capitalize on it. Web 3.0 has years of development ahead. Putting all that aside, I have some thoughts that may prove helpful to professionals who feel like the obsolete man in Twilight Zone.

It seems that some of the best people to help with the implementation of Web 3.0 are English majors, back-of-the-book indexers and librarians. Their expertise with grammatical structure and pointing people to the correct information is perfectly suited for the semantic (logical) aspects of future web development. In fact, liberal arts and science majors may play a key role in helping Web 3.0 make the transition from hallway conversations to reality.

For a long time, liberal arts majors and those who studied the humanities have been the subject of much derision. At work, they were viewed as a necessary evil. Consequently, they were paid on the low end of the wage scale and treated accordingly. Nevertheless, people with these degrees are creative, out-of-the-box thinkers who can engineer imaginative solutions. As Web 3.0 unfolds for at least the rest of this decade, they are finally in a position to realize some well-deserved financial success and recognition.

Web 3.0, a platform sometimes called the semantic web, will call for critical thinking, logic and rhetorical skills that are common stock among English majors. It will also call for metadata skills (i.e., information about information) that are the domain of librarians and back-of-the-book indexers.

One of the primary objects of Web 3.0 is to give our devices the tools to understand information that exists on the Internet and retrieve it according to individual needs and preferences. Did you catch that? Our devices will have the tools to understand existing information. To implement these measures, web designers will require people who are comfortable with logical problems, critical thinking and the pure drudgery of creating and maintaining controlled metadata. In other words, they’ll need educated professionals.

Web 2.0 was about giving ordinary people a platform for web content development. You’re looking at one of the tools of Web 2.0 right now. Other examples include Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, Facebook and Wikipedia. Wikipedia gave ordinary people the ability to contribute to a global knowledge base. The limitation of Web 2.0, however, is that it created a tsunami of information that may or may not be helpful to individuals who are looking for extremely specific answers to tough problems.

Note: One of the most interesting aspects of Wikipedia history has been the need for a referee. Academic institutions still do not trust Wikipedia as a reliable source, even though professors may encourage students to use it as a starting point. On the other hand, Wikipedia has begun to exercise some oversight and restrict the content posted. Proper attribution and the citation of reliable sources is key to Wikipedia's future success. This effort will require the guidance of professionals. Nevertheless, its strength will continue to be the widely distributed and collective intelligence of many points of view.

Web 3.0 will work behind the scenes to direct people to real answers for their questions and problems. That’s where expertise in a variety of fields, the liberal arts and sciences, will become indispensable in the development of this platform. Furthermore, I believe true experts have an unparalleled opportunity to realize a payoff on their intellectual capital by using Web 2.0 to publish their content while Web 3.0 swiftly and efficiently directs appropriate audiences to their content.

Comparatively speaking, Web 2.0 is a mountain of useful and useless books, magazines and multimedia chaotically piled up by a giant tsunami of technology we call social media. Web 3.0, if properly realized, will be a library that organizes every publication within a super organized structure of metadata and ontologies (i.e., describing or classifying things according to their relationships). In Web 2.0, you might find the information you need after sifting through a variety of information you didn’t need. In Web 3.0, your device will find the information you need quickly and deliver it to you.

Web 3.0 is currently projected to be with us for the rest of this decade. I don’t know if that’s true or not. Web 4.0 or something better may replace it long before the decade is out. The key, however, is to take advantage of it while it lasts, and it’s just getting started. You’ve probably heard of the new privacy policies being tested by Google and Facebook. Perhaps you’ve also heard that Google is preparing to release Knowledge Graph, a new search tool. All of these developments are preparing the way for Web 3.0, but organizations, companies and individuals will need the people I’ve described in this entry to deploy it effectively. Don’t give up on the liberal arts, the sciences or education. It’s worth the investment.

The Social Revolution and Web 3.0?

I want to state at the outset that I am not against technological innovation. Furthermore, I do not fear change. I celebrate progress and embrace the positive impact it brings to our lives. Similarly, I anticipate a better quality of life in the  years to come through an acceleration of research and development. I make my living by helping others use and invest in new inventions; therefore, I have an interest in continued progress.

Nevertheless, I see something along the horizon that gives me pause for thought. Since the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall  Street (OWS), we’ve heard a lot about the social revolution. Facebook, Twitter and other social tools have had a transformative effect on the political scene. My purpose is not to assess the merits of these social movements, but they achieved what the United States, with all its weapons, money and allies never dared envision. Like it or not, they have also transformed our own politics. Every politician now speaks TEA Party and OWS language fluently regardless of their actual positions.

These developments have not gone unnoticed in the business world. For example, major software vendors are now discuss the merits of social media for completing tasks. I’m not absolutely certain what they mean by that, but it may be instructive to consider what they meant when they discussed unified communication and collaboration (UCC) a few years ago. They meant that businesses should support the way their knowledge workers spread information. Consequently, if your employees used instant messaging, you gave them an instant messenger. Instant messaging was old hat long time ago, but I used it to illustrate my point.

Currently, we use Facebook and Twitter with a variety of other tools to transmit and receive information. Recently, I read an article by Andrew Keen, in which he described 2012 as the year of Google’s possible demise.[1] He attributed this development to Web 3.0, Facebook and the social revolution. He also described the mash-up technologies we used in Web 2.0 (e.g., YouTube and Google Maps).

I’d like to deliver my own speculation. If Web 3.0 has arrived, it won’t survive long. Web 4.0 and several subsequent versions will probably replace it well before we reach the end of this decade. We’ll quickly move beyond anything we have yet to imagine, and the pace of change will accelerate. The greatest challenge I see ahead is our ability to cope with the growing volume of change. Remember Future Shock?

I’ve speculated elsewhere that even the earliest adopters will struggle to keep up with these changes. I believe that’s true, but I don’t think we have to feel overwhelmed or give up in despair. I’d like to repeat some advice I’ve previously delivered: remain true to your passions, stay loosely tied to technology and tightly couple your work with proven theory, sound practices and a liberated imagination.

References

[1]Keen, Andrew (March 30, 2012). Opinion: Is the social web an asteroid for the Google dinosaur? Retrieved on March 31, 2012 from http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/30/opinion/keen-google-social-media/index.html?hpt=hp_c3.

Future proof your tools! FrameMaker or Word, Part 3

 

In 1998, I attended a conference held by the Society for Technical Communication in Anaheim, California. During that conference, I learned about single-source documentation. This term may seem a bit cryptic, but it means that you write a topic once, store it in a permanent location and link other documents to it when you need the information. The benefit of this approach is that you never have to write a topic more than once. If the topic requires an update, you can edit the source file and choose whether or not to update the linked content in your dependent files.

When I returned from the conference, I was no longer satisfied just to write documentation. Now I wanted to engineer it the way I had learned at the Anaheim conference. To that end, I began to experiment with mail merge in Microsoft^® Word^®. About a year later, I took a course on Adobe^® FrameMaker^® (FM) and easily mastered some of its most advance features for that revision. One of those features was conditional text. With mail merge in Word and conditional text in FM, I was able to use the same file to create single-source documentation for several vendors.

I was delighted that I could change entire documents from one vendor to another with the click of one button in Word and FM. That included all of the model names and several context-sensitive passages of content. If a vendor chose not to offer a product or function, each word processor automatically removed it from the content. Moreover, they’d also change content automatically between vendors. This capability not only saved time for my company but quickly delivered a significant return on investment. I had scored a major victory, but I soon realized that I had barely scratched the surface.

The next step was to make my single-source content accessible to paper-based, electronic and web documents. Furthermore, I needed to increase my knowledge and acquire better tools. FM supported structured writing with Extensible Markup Language (XML) and Standardized General Markup Language (SGML), but I seldom used it for my projects. Word saved to XML and Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), but the code it generated was not useful for most single-sourcing strategies. I’ve studied XML and HTML off and on for several years, but most of my projects required only one thing: content. Therefore, I focused on improving my communication skills.

Since then, the market has introduced several new word processors and single-source tools. As the list grows, we may find ourselves more confused than relieved. They all promise to make us more productive, but they miss some problems and introduce others. To overcome this problem, writers should be loosely tied to technology and tightly coupled with proven theory, sound practices and liberated imaginations. As the pace of change accelerates, staying current will challenge even the earliest technology adopters. Nevertheless, we can accomplish anything with Word, FM or any other tool if we use the best one we have: our minds.

Future proof your tools! FrameMaker or Word? Part 2

One of the most frequent complaints I hear when comparing Microsoft^® Word^® to Adobe^® FrameMaker^® (FM) is on the topic of autonumbering. Autonumbering in FM is stable and easy to maintain. In Word, autonumbering has caused nightmares, especially with long documents. On the other hand, I haven’t experienced problems with autonumbered captions such as figure numbers and table numbers for several years.

In the past, whether you wrote large or small documents in Word, you'd eventually run into the nagging issue of going back and correcting numbered lists. They’d restart when you wanted to continue from a previous list or continue from previous lists when you wanted to start a new list. After you thought you had corrected the problem, you'd notice something wrong, and realize that the autonumbering problem had reintroduced itself. It was a well-known and vexing issue to professional writers.

Over the years, I’ve experimented with better ways to create numbered lists in Microsoft Word. For a long time, I abandoned autonumbering for numbered lists and headings. I continued to define paragraph styles that would accommodate these design elements, but when it came to including a number, I typed it manually. That's not a satisfactory answer when every second of productivity counts.

I also experimented with using captions as numbered headings. They were relatively stable. Why not? This approach appeared to work, but it had a terrible drawback: pagination does not recognize caption-numbered headings. For example, if you had a series of training modules, and you wanted to include the module number with your page numbers, it didn’t recognize the caption number in your first-level heading.

In Office 2007, however, Microsoft began to address the problems surrounding autonumbering. You can read an interesting entry about this issue on the Microsoft Word Blogs.[1] As of this writing, I use Microsoft Office 2010. In running several tests, I noticed that numbered lists appear to work better now than in previous revisions of Word. I still have to decide whether I want subsequent lists to continue autonumbering from previous lists or start all over again, but the autonumbering appears to be stable after I’ve made the initial selection.

Microsoft may have put this issue to rest. The question that remains is whether autonumbering works consistently with large documents. For that kind of project, I have the following suggestions:

• Set a maximum page count for every file in your project
• Maintain a unique file for every major division such as chapters and modules
• Set a maximum number of heading levels (Four should be more than enough.)
• Keep numbered lists short and free of multi-level complexity
• Do not create a master document for a large project
• Use Reference Document (RD) fields in a separate file for your Table of Contents

If you follow this advice, and create the appropriate paragraph styles in your templates, you should be able to avoid most autonumbering issues.

---

[1]Stuple, Stuart J. (November 6, 2011). Numbering is Not Possessed. Word Team. Retrieved on March 13, 2012 from http://blogs.office.com/b/microsoft-word/archive/2006/11/06/numbering-is-not-possessed.aspx.

Future proof your tools! FrameMaker or Word? Part 1

I've created documents and templates in Microsoft^® Word^® (Word) and Adobe^® FrameMaker^® (FM). In one case, my boss asked me to build an FM template that matched the department’s Word templates in every detail. I completed that work in a few business hours. My next challenge was to support multiple versions of the same documents. I could easily handle that requirement with conditional text in FM, but what about Word?

I maintained five manuals ranging from 200 to 500 pages. I also created and maintained dozens of installation sheets. In addition to our own company, we had four original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) selling our product. The system I documented had over 50 different pieces of equipment associated with it, and each OEM wanted to rename them with their own model numbers.

Added to this complexity was the need to finish each version of each manual and take all of them through agency approval at the same time. Our approval process could easily last for years; therefore, it was essential to build the greatest amount of efficiency into the process as possible. It may seem unfortunate, but we could not use FM. We had to use Word. I knew FM well by this time, but I was the only one in my department with that knowledge and a license. My boss wanted to expand FM use, but he was turned down for additional funding.

Nevertheless, we still had to get the job done. Most technical communicators have watched this scenario unfold throughout their careers. It’s unpleasant, but it’s precisely at this point where our creativity has a chance to reveal itself.

I found one answer in mail merge with its conditional If-Then-Else fields. Mail merge enabled me to match the conditional text functionality in FM. I could drop large chunks of text for one OEM or add completely different language for another. By pressing one button I could automatically and reliably change passages of text and model names across an entire manual when the OEM changed.

I wanted to see if I could do the same thing with images. Eventually, I found several ways to change images by experimenting with the drawing tools in Word, using the IncludeText feature and the Building Blocks Organizer. I also discovered custom document properties, which enabled me to insert various passages of repeated text wherever I needed them.

Note: At first, I found that IncludeText was volatile, but I experimented and found a way to overcome that issue. I’ll discuss my solution in a separate entry.

 

Using Microsoft Word is not a limitation. The greatest leverage and value you can bring to any job is the flexibility to build a sound documentation practice on a strong theoretical foundation. Using the right tool for the right job is important enough, but it's nowhere near as important as meeting client needs in a way that builds on previous investments and existing knowledge. Finally, the most powerful tool you can acquire is one you already possess: your imagination.

Time to Reinvent

Jacksonville, Florida is a microcosm of a world that’s changing around us. Empty buildings stand as ghostly reminders of a busy past. In a few cases, these structures were built as far back as the dawn of the 20th Century. For years, they’ve stood as hollow shells of businesses that once bustled with activity and life. A few years ago, I looked inside one of these architectural relics and the only thing I saw was a nest of pigeons. In other cases, however, businesses recently closed due to the latest recession.

One cause of our economic misery is technological innovation. Automation has enabled companies to cut down tremendous amounts of backlog while significantly reducing overhead. Of course, that means they laid off workers by the thousands never to rehire them. As with all things, technology is a two-edged sword. We can either let it hack us to death, or we can wield it to carve new roles and groundbreaking opportunities for ourselves.

Today, I’ll discuss two opportunities. One of them is self publication. This opportunity doesn’t just apply to writing books. It applies to almost any creative or technical thing you do. It is no longer necessary to submit your work to a publisher. This is one of many ways the Internet and digitization have leveled the playing field. Seem too simple? Lots of people are doing it.

For example, people are publishing music on their own and keeping the profits. They’re also writing every genre of literature, and adding to their bottom line. A lot of it is drivel, but that’s not a new development. Moreover, it represents an additional opportunity for freelance editors and writing consultants to assist with tools that make them more productive and profitable.

Similarly, it's getting easier to program applications. In fact, it's so much easier that it’s quickly becoming accessible to the public with inexpensive tools. This used to be the exclusive domain of highly trained specialists. No longer! All you need is the idea, and these tools will do most of the work for you. In a few more years, we'll see many more tools that will transform our ideas into profitable applications without hiring teams of developers.

On the other hand, developers can enhance their careers by transforming their knowledge, skills and experience into marketable services. For example, they can become consultants for those who need quick advice in developing their ground-breaking applications and businesses or they can create code for specialized functions not covered by the standard functions of these new applications.

Progress is unavoidable, but you don’t have to let it destroy your future. As long as you can imagine the possibilities, you can reinvent yourself in a multitude of ways. As I look at those empty buildings in Jacksonville, I don't see rubble. I see new opportunities to rejuvenate and transform them into future hubs of innovation. That's what I hope you'll see as a result of reading this note: an opportunity to reinvent yourself for the future.