Book Bondage (Was: Re: Programmers Prefer 8.5 x 11)

[Jonathan Horen]

In article <104458 at linus.UUCP> jcmorris at mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:
>My personal preference (regardless of the paper size) is for loose-leaf
>format for any manual which I'm likely to need on a routine basis.  Two
>
[Stuff deleted] 
>
>How sayeth the jury?  Do you prefer loose-leaf, perfect/staple bound,
>or hardback for documentation?

An excellent follow-up question (also in its own right) to the issue of
documentation size. This juror is of these opinions:

   LOOSE-LEAF FORMAT 

	I like loose-leaf because (a) you can add change pages/remove
	outdated pages easily; and (b) since the pages are removable, 
	it's easy to copy them -- especially if you have a sophisticated
	copier with sheet-feed and double-sided capabilities.

	I dislike loose-leaf because (a) the pages inevitably tear at
	the holes; and (b) people inevitably decide that "bigger is
	better", and package the documentation in loose-leaf binders
	that have 3"-, 4"-, or more "-wide spines, permitting them to
	fit several manuals/binder -- who can handle 7lb loose-leaf
	binders comfortably?

   PERFECT/STAPLED FORMAT

	I dislike perfect/stapled bindings for technical documentation
	because (a) they don't stay open unless you place some sort of
	weight on the pages or forceably fold/crease them, which breaks
	the binding and shortens their life-span; (b) the inner page
	margin is inevitably too small, so it becomes difficult to read
	material, especially if the manual is thick; (c) because of (b),
	it's usually difficult/impossible to cleanly/accuratly photocopy
	these manuals; and (d) because of (a) and (b), these manuals
	usually remain on the shelf, and employees/users end-up taking
	much longer to master the hardware/software or doing so 
	incompletely.

   HARDBACK

	I dislike hardback bindings for technical documentation because
	(a) the cost is prohibitive in small runs (perhaps even in large
	runs, given the thin profit-margins in this cutthroat business);
	and because of most of the reasons I listed for perfect/stapled
	format.

I'd like to offer another book-binding format: spiral.

   SPIRAL

	I like the spiral-bound format for technical documentation
	because (a) the cost is usually no more than for loose-leaf;
	(b) the manual pages open easily and lie-flat willingly; 
	(c) the manual pages can be photocopied easily and accuratly,
	even if the manual is thick; (d) since there is no heavy binder,
	the manual is light-weight, which also allows you to make it
	thicker (more white-space without guilt!); and (e) reasons (a)
	through (d) encourage employees/users to use the manual.

	I dislike the spiral-bound format because (a) you cannot add
	change pages/remove updated pages; and (b) a rough user can
	tear the pages at the holes.

SUMMARY:

I say: forget about the perfect/stapled and hardback formats.

I say: use the loose-leaf format for documenting (a) `evolving' products
(those that are marketed not-IAW the "Paul Masson Principle", i.e.,
`buggy' products that are sold `before their time' and that will require
`polishing' :-{) in the not-to-distant future); (b) products in which
revisions must appear as change-pages within the documentation, rather
than as release notes (reasons of physical safety, data corruption/loss,
etc); and (c) products used in harsh work conditions, so that the binder
will protect the document against the elements.

NOTE: 	With regard to (c), above, I would suggest using heavier stock
	and/or coating the pages after printing for greater protection.
	It may be expensive, but machines used in harsh conditions, such
	as factories, are often made dangerous, and having a usable
	manual handy can be the difference between `forewarned-and-
	forearmed' and death/disability.

I say: use the spiral format for documenting all products not defined
by (a), (b), or (c), above.

MY PET PEEVE:

6.5x8-inch, loose-leaf bound manuals, with slip-cases. *Nothing* stays on
the shelf like these babys. They cost more $$, so your product costs more
$$ and you may sell less, and their `non-use' ends up costing your
customer $$ (initially, as well as in increased learning-time/impaired
performance/damaged equipment/damaged employees).

I guess I better put a disclaimer here, since my employer and I view the
world of TechPubs through different filters. So,

	"The opinions expressed here are mine, and do not
	 necessarily reflect the corporate philosophy of
	 Cadence Design Systems, Inc."

On the other hand, why would a `sarariman' like me be posting a follow-up
article to this newsgroup on a Sunday morning, if not to express HIS own
opinion!

 +------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
 | _J_o_n_a_t_h_a_n_ _B_._ _H_o_r_e_n_ _ _ _ _  | |  .           |       Lilmod Al Manat Laasot    |
 | _C_a_d_e_n_c_e_ _D_e_s_i_g_n_ _S_y_s_t_e_m_s | |__ (/\   \  / |__     Lilmod Al Manat Lelamed   |
 |                        |  _/ / _\  _\/   _/     Lilmod Al Manat Lichtov   |
 | _h_o_r_e_n_@_c_a_d_e_n_c_e_._c_o_m      |            -:   -                                |
 +------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+