Sounds like they needed a real Technical Writer in there, instead of (or
in addition to) whatever persons they did have.
Or a good editor.
Cheers
Jay
(Technical Writer)
Kelly_Hamilton wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:36:12 -0400, Larry Medina <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> I did get in touch with one of the organizations Larry mentioned in his posting,
> and was asked to address 10 criteria. Here they are, with my answers
> regarding 30300 (not 30301):
>
> 1. How well the publication meets the needs of the targeted audience
> I think a lot of the document was not written at high enough of a level for the
> targeted audience, which is supposed to be managers (including top
> management, who is given the mandate of implementing the MSR) who are not
> records managers. Some of ISO30300 repeated almost verbatim from
> ISO15489, and was not needed in a document that is supposed to be written
> for non-records professionals. I would expect that a document of this nature
> would be non-technical and brief. This became somewhat technical, and is
> definitely not brief.
>
>
> 2. How well the publication is organized
> I thought the last sub-sections in Section 2 should have been first, and entire
> sub-sections and sections should be removed completely.
>
> 3. How well each section is developed
> Much of Section 2 was ‘overkill’…it was too much information for the intended
> audience. Section 3 should be re-done…it needlessly separates the definitions
> into groupings; this makes finding a definition much more difficult than it
> should be. Annex A should be removed completely.
>
> 4. How sufficient and meaningful the headings are
> These were satisfactory.
>
> 5. The ease with which key points and interrelationships are identified
> I think this document was trying to make interrelationships where they really
> weren’t needed (as in Figure 2, and the whole Annex A). Key points were
> discussed, but then seemed to be re-discussed at times.
>
> 6. The technical accuracy of the concepts and terminology (Please also
> evaluate the use of acronyms, jargon, etc.)
> The examples of conversion and migration in the Definitions were wrong.
> Otherwise, the technical accuracy seemed mostly correct.
>
> 7. The sufficiency and relevancy of the illustrations
> Without exception, the graphics did not serve to give any meaningful insight
> to the text. In addition, several of them were confusing even to this records
> professional. I cannot imagine what management would think when trying to
> decipher them…and they probably would give up.
>
> 8. The sufficiency and currency of references
> The references used for Annex A can be removed (since I am advocating
> removing Annex A). The other references were sufficient and current (if one
> counts the latest version of ISO15489 from 2001 as being current) for this
> document.
>
> 9. Whether or not the publication is readable
> When I took out several sub-sections, the publication became readable.
> Again, for the specified target audience, this publication would NOT be
> readable.
>
>
Rule #1: know your audience!
> 10. Whether or not you would recommend the publication’s approval as
> an ISO standard and, if not, why not
> As written, I would NOT recommend this publication for approval as an ISO
> standard. It is too confusing for a non-records management person to
> understand. Perhaps, if the areas that are not written at a high level are
> removed, this publication could be recommended for approval.
>
--
Jay Maechtlen
626 444-5112 office
626 840-8875 cell
www.laserpubs.com
--
Jay Maechtlen
626 444-5112 office
626 840-8875 cell
www.laserpubs.com
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
