Mind Manager from Mindjet

One of the most valuable tools I have in my techwriting arsenal is Mind Manager offered by http://www.mindjet.com/.

I am able to pump out and order my ideas in a matter of minutes instead of using Visio and labouring over getting things lined up. There are icons and markers readily available to annotate sub-topics and text notes that can be used to reference ideas and to expand on those ideas if necessary.

This tool takes the hard work out of producing ideas on paper compared to using a tool like Visio where the user can become bogged by managing the placement of shapes and linking them. 

There is only one downside to Mind Manager and that is its multiple outputs. I have found that when you:

• - output to Visio – it changes the layout of your mind map completely,
• - output to PowerPoint – it chops off any sub-topics that don’t fit on the slide while export to Excel is just flaky to say the least…
• - output to PDF – unless you have the latest patch, it triggers an error message: ”Could not print to PDF.. “

http://www.mindjet.com/ 

It also comes with a free reader (personal use only) so that everyone can view your document once you have published it in its native format. Unfortunately, the reader is not freely available for commercial use and must be purchased. I feel this is a somewhat short-sighted move by the company as it stops the proliferation of their product. If they were to make the reader available to all and sundry, once the product gains significant market share, then, perhaps it would be wise to ’sell’ the reader.

That said: Check it out, it is a tool worth having…

Writing for a Wiki – Wiki Diversification and Strangulation

Given the recent implementation of a 3 separate wiki’s (using MediaWiki) within the same company, it has become apparent that people are simply not used to working collaboratively.  We have three departments using the same wiki software you find on wikipedia.  For the sake of confidentiality, lets refer to the departments as Support, DevelopmentProject1 and DevelopmentProject2.

In all three instances, there are a range of different behaviours (human) when it comes to updating the wiki.

Scenario 1….Support 1

In Support1, the approach to documentation is such that it resembles a bureacracy.  They commissioned the development of the wiki as a primary information source for the running of their department and given that the nature of their business is ’support’, the wiki contains procedures, background information about systems and a range of troubleshooting flowcharts.  In this instance, there is anxiety about just how much the information on the wiki can be messed with. To this end, two wiki masters were designated as the ‘master updaters’ of the wiki… I hear you all gasp – “that defies the whole object!”

Scenario 2…

In DevelopmentProject1, this department has been broken into a range of different teams, each handling a sub-set of projects and maintenance tasks for a set of systems that churn information on a 24/7 basis. The approach to the wiki has been one of random information capture, when and where it is deemed necessary.. some empty their emails into the wiki as if it were a bucket…. In this wiki, there have been some structure imposed in that the wiki has been divided into Teams and Products that is, the Wiki front page has been divided into TEAMS and PRODUCTS.

From here the organic growth of pages has been left largely to those who wish to contribute at any time they feel necessary.

 

Scenario 3…

In DevelopmentProject2, this department is developing a range of components for a national monitoring system. It is a development project that is considered cutting edge and the information depositing has been nothing short of random and haphazard. Contributions are at times just dumped into the wiki with no apparent organisation or consideration for the end reader.  As a result, uptake has been minimal.  Compounding the problem is the fact that several other incarnations of wiki (Twiki) abound so fragmentation of wiki’s have led back to the number one problem a wiki was designed to solve in the first place.  Wiki users now not only have 3 implementations of wiki in 3 different departments to refer to but also a number of different types of wiki to refer to, each with their own editing rules. These include Mediawiki, SharePoint Wiki and Twiki Wiki.

In hindsight with clarity, the only conclusions I can draw from this situation is as follows:

1. When implementing a wiki in your organisation, it should span all departments. In other words rollout ONE wiki that everyone can use from the outset. Avoid using multiple types of wiki software.
2. Educate users on how to use a wiki effectively in terms of information capture.  By this I mean that the wiki should not be used as an information dump (thus rendering it unwieldy and disorganised) but train users to consider their potential audience and to apply a little discipline when it comes to structure of the contribution.
3. If a wiki is intended to be used for procedures that affect business continuity, consider using SharePoint Document Libraries for that purpose and take advantage of its inbuilt document control procedures ie. Major and Minor Versioning, Security and Audit Trails.
4. Be aware of ‘wiki strangulation’. The original intention behind the wiki is collective collaboration not one or two ‘masters’ vetting every piece of information that appears on the site. This behaviour diminishes the wiki to the point where the power of this synergistic tool is lost.

Most useful tools… 2007(8) plus browser wars…

Have a look at this document… http://d.scribd.com/docs/19re73m9mmqh8htx2lva.pdf

The list uses the responses of 109 people, which is a very small demographic sample, however in spite of the erroneous research methods, I can honestly say that it does list some of the most fantastic tools out there and most of the most popular tools come at the right price… “FREE”.. for example Skype. The document touts Firefox as the most used browser among its user group however, the browser market share statistics (June 2008) state that IE has 73.01% market share, next is Firefox at 19.30%, followed by Safari at 6.31% then Netscape, Mozilla, and others…Google’s Chrome will give these browsers a run for their money too.. so keep an eye out for it at …  

Supposed to be released today…
http://www.misaustralia.com/viewer.aspx?EDP://1220310893071&section=technology

and it comes with an interesting User Manual: (gives new meaning to technical writing)
http://books.google.com/books?id=8UsqHohwwVYC&printsec=frontcover#PPA5,M1

 

Check out the tools, they are fantastic.. I simply love Picassa.. and Captivate and…

WordWeb Dictionary Thesaurus and Word Finder

I have found this a useful tool for quick lookups on my desktop. It sits unobtrusively in the system tray and just does the job!  You don’t have to download the software if you prefer using it online so check it out.

http://wordweb.info/

 

NEO Email Organiser

NEO Email Organiser (NEO 3.2 has just been released) is a very cool tool complements Microsoft Outlook and can be used in preference to Outlook.

I use MS-Outlook and run NEO in tandem that is, I run both programs at the same time.

The Outlook Search function is basically USELESS however, in NEO I can search back through several PST files (I keep on for each year on my local drive with backups on CD) and find whatever I want in seconds if I am specific in the search criteria.

It also eliminates the need to keep emails in folders – this is a great timesaver.

Check it out today… It is not very expensive and is well worth the expenditure. I have found emails that have saved me from near disaster at times when searching Outlook would never have located them.

Even the free version is useful but you do find yourself wanting to hook up more PST files. With the demo you are limited to only one PST file… My current NEO Message Stores goes back to 2005.

Save yourself alot of time and check it out today: http://www.EmailOrganizer.com

When you buy the product, all upgrades are free!…

No I am not getting a commission on this product, I just feel that it is a tool that cannot be ignored.

Enjoy,
Nikki

User Interface Checklist

Author: Rhonda Bracey: Cybertext Consulting – see http://www.cybertext.com.au/10353.htm

Download her podcast on a User Interface Checklist. She covers interesting angles about user interface and the costs of NOT reviewing an interface. Tips for communicating recommended changes and so on.

Book recommendations:

1. Don’t Make Me Think – Steve Krug
   http://www.sensible.com/chapter.html - Read a free chapter online
2. Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High-tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity – Alan Cooper

 

SMS Speak – Smenglish – Here Today Gone Tomorrow

Yesterday as I was trawling through the Macquarie Dictionary, I noticed a page at the back of the book dedicated to SMS English (I often refer to it as: Smenglish.. and I got to thinking about why some techwriters pull up our noses at Smenglish (or do we?) and why?  Consider the following example:

 Great Mate vs Gr8 M8

What is the difference between the two and why should one set of symbols render the other as useless when in fact they are still the same in pronunciation and meaning and in fact nothing has really changed or has it? Has the meaning been diminished in any way?

Considering perhaps that these symbols we call words or signifiers carry with them connotations for example, one is formal and the other isn’t, one carries connotations of ‘coolness’ (if you are a young person for example this might be your preferred method of communication).

Could we say that the evolution of Smenglish is related simply to effort and space on mobile technology?.. Is it here to stay? Should we as techwriters live in denial or acknowledge its existence but only for certain contexts? 

What if a techwriter was editing a Smenglish novel designed for mobile devices or a user manual available on mobile technology…? What rules apply? 

What is the potential impact on language as we know it?
Does it threaten us because perhaps it may cause a dumbing down? I think of George Orwell’s 1984 where language is limited and so the people become ‘dumbed down’ too…

All food for thought… I would be interested in your responses as this area of language fascinates me .. and I want to see what role it has to play in techwriting… oh and by the way you don’t have to answer all the questions, just pass on your thoughts..

Links to My Other Blogs

Just in case you are visiting student from SCU checking out my blog – have a look at http://creativereaderwriter.wordpress.com if you are interested.

Wiki for your USB Stick

Today, I made one of those discoveries that is truly exciting.  Imagine your own personal wiki that fits on your USB stick!.. Yes, it’s true folks.  Check it out: http://www.tiddlywiki.com/. Be amazed, be very amazed because I am still amazed.

Web 2.0 – Author-Reader Roles Merge

Web 2.0 brings with it a merging of print culture roles: author and reader to become writer-reader.

“Like Lanham and Landow, Bolter and Poster also see the technologies of electronic writing as reconfiguring the authorial self” (Grusin 1996 p.42).

Grusin, Richard, “What is an Electronic Author? Theory and the Technological Fallacy” in Virtual Realities and their Discontents, ed. Robert Markely (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996, 39-54)