Kudos to MonkeyPi for linking to this: Student ‘Twitters’ his way out of Egyptian jail
“Usually the first thing the police go for is the detainees’ cameras and cellular phones,” el-Hamalawy said. “I’m surprised they left James with his phone.”
I think this is one of those technology issues that repressive governments are just not going to be able to contain.
Posted by Charles in Web 2.0 | Comment now »
I’m a little late for this… But early for next week.
Kicking off with this great post:
The goal of many of the Web 2.0 tools is to reduce the overhead. Think of it as a “flat tax” for interactions, in that many of the philosophies of Web 2.0 are around transparency and participation, in addition, everyone is equal.
If you look at MySpace, LinkedIn, Youtube or other social networks, there is no hierarchy and pretty much everyone is equal (yes there are administrators for such systems who have greater powers).
Who keeps the Internet going? No one really, there are some agreed upon standards so that one computer can talk to another, and information can be displayed in a common format, and that is about it.
By the way, my condolences for this writer’s situation; I was in similar circumstances just last year with my dad.
Web 2.0 for Collaboration and Learning - This should be titled Web 2.0 Collaboration 101. Part of a six-week course set up in order to encourage exploration of the new and emerging technologies that are reshaping the way we use information.
Top Three Web 2.0 Tools for Online Education - A quick roundup which would get just about anyone started in basic collaboration online.
(8) Online Collaboration Tools - New Technologies and Web Services
9 Principles for Implementation: The Big Shift - Check out the principles for managing change. I think this applies across the spectrum and isn’t only limited to traditional schools.
Ten Trends: Educating Children for Tomorrow’s World - Specifically, Trend 3: Social and Intellectual Capital will become the Primary Economic Value in Society.
Posted by Charles in Online Collaboration, Web 2.0, Workflow Collaboration | Comment now »
LB, this is for you… The clock started ticking when I SMS’d you so you realize how quickly someone can aggregate thoughts and collaborate with others.
I’m posting this real time to show an example of how quick and easy it is to update content. Below the fold, begin to realize how you can kill your email strings forever with a blog…
Start with this… Best five minute summary around.
The single most important thing to remember is that once your content within XML is able to be repurposed virtually anywhere.
Posted by Charles in Blogging, Web 2.0, Workflow Collaboration | 1 Comment »
Continuing from eDMS Roshambo Part 4 | Feedback with the wiki versus the MadPak with Feedback Service.
Wikis clobber eDMS when it comes to collaboration. Wikis are great but getting the end result into a user manual format still requires an external tool.
There are strengths to not having a Wiki model introduced right away into a corporation. Dan Ortega mentions corporate policy holding back the anarchy, however it helps considerably when there is a gradual move towards the Wiki model.
MadCap is halfway through the Wiki model already with just the MadPak. Add to that the Analyzer and Feedback Server/Service’s Web 2.0 features, you’ve got yourself a good step past Wiki as far as maintaining positive control over the content.
I think the key element is… how much time would this all save each role a Technical Communicator has. Let alone the workflow’s editing search and correction time.
Cost - $1200 for the MadPak and $400/quarter for the Feedback Service ($1600/year) so you don’t even need to host a server and stress the IIS configuration. No pricing on Analyzer is yet available. I really should get some sort of Amazon Buy-now button for this stuff. 
As far as the industry tools are currently set, MadCap Analyzer could save upwards of $50k - $80k a year in tech writer time and other software. That’s pretty hefty, although at the time I’m writing this MadCap hasn’t set a price for the Analyzer.
Note: Pricing for Analyzer is pretty cheap, as I edit this article I find that it’s only about $200 or so to upgrade.
Posted by Charles in Software, Technical Communication, Web 2.0, Workflow Collaboration, wiki | Comment now »
Wiki strength is that anyone can provide feedback or edit content. The passive feedback of viewed pages falls under another product’s reporting (AWStats or WebTrends to name a couple).
Let’s examine the potential benefits that usage statistics and feedback could make to eDMS and/or wiki content. The two we’ll look at are Adobe RoboServer and MadCap’s Feedback Server.
Both provide feedback about page usage and search terms. This allows content creators and technical writers to evaluate which areas to focus their attention on, sort of like a triage, but MadCap’s goes a step or two farther and adds a Web 2.0 aspect with the addition of Comments pages within the web interface.
Understanding the origins of the RoboServer and Feedback Server comes in handy when comparing their technologies.
Posted by Charles in Software, Technical Communication, Web 2.0, Workflow Collaboration, wiki | Comment now »
Getting to the gut-check level of hard truth of whether all our TechComm lives will be forever changed - Is India (Outsourcing) Winning?
Recently I’ve been examining the outsourcing market in India. Part of this came out of my extremely detailed analysis of Adobe, however I also investigated innovation in India. One further study I recently did was analyzing the STC India earnings comparison between US / North American technical communicators and India-based technical communicators.
J Schwan, Managing Partner of Solstice Consulting just returned from a meet and greet trip overseas to India.
I visited four different potential partners yesterday. One was a smaller startup of really smart software engineers, one was essentially a sweat shop (20 programmers packed in a 12×12 room, a very hot room) and the other two were large publicly traded companies.
I’m really glad I came because on paper, the first two firms looked the same and visiting their development center proved they were very, very different.
Here’s a sketchy SWOT analysis based on my research:
Posted by Charles in Online Collaboration, Technical Communication, Web 2.0, Workflow Collaboration | 6 Comments »
Continued from eDMS Roshambo Part 2: Wikis vs eDMS posted a couple months ago. Sorry for the delay.
…And now you understand my RoShamBo comparison. Wiki, according to the authors I quoted in eDMS Roshambo Part 2 beats plain desktop publishing. In fact, Stewart Mader has an excellent book out that’s on my next-to-read-list.
 |
Wikipatterns by Stewart Mader |
And as we remember from my eDMS Roshambo Part 2 quote from Dan’s blog, Dan Ortega feels that with the proper corporate restraint wikis can work well within a corporation.
This is with caveats, and not all of them are limited to technology. There are significant conflicting social elements regarding wiki implementation as well which is a point that Stewart Mader and I both agree upon.
Sacha Chua from The Orange Chair discusses this dilemma in It’s the culture, not the technology:
Corporate culture isn’t something you can change in a few months. You can’t install goodwill. You can’t enable cooperation.
In short, if you work in a hostile corporate environment, wikis might not be the best method to collaborate. Then again, in such an environment there’s probably zero collaboration going on at all.
No more of that developed content (.doc, .pdf, .fm) shoved somewhere on the eDMS or intranet with only desktop tools to edit it with. A wiki provides a single authoring framework that all can use.
The primary objection / weakness that I have of a wiki integration is in single-sourcing and repurposing the resulting content.
Bringing exported content out into XML or another form is possible in some wikis but the end product still requires some sort of editing tool such as Microsoft Word, Adobe FrameMaker, or MadCap Blaze. Now you run into some issues.
The content’s single sourcing is critical, and if it’s updated in the wiki getting the changes into the technical communicator’s source working files could become a devastating bottleneck.
The second weakness of a wiki is in the editing tool itself. The integration of concepts such as snippets and variables doesn’t currently existi in wiki editing.
I would also add that the snippet suggestions and many other ‘homogenizing’ methods that MadCap’s Analyzer offers allow significant time savings in structuring content. This is a capability that the wikis I’ve seen don’t have and I consider this to be a particular weakness when overall content structure is considered due to the time required to get ‘er done.
Wiki content needs to be cleaned up if it’s going to see the outside world. I think behind the firewall a wiki gives everyone something to work with but there’s still considerable work to be done prior to integrating raw text into a corporate presence.
So even with a wiki there is still a workflow requiring a tool, and usage feedback can still be examined within the published online resources.
With RoboHelp or Flare the WYSIWYG is very sophisticated, the result of both product’s design team experience with help authoring. With a better editing tool for XML Flare tends to overrule both RoboHelp and straight wiki collaboration with the MadPak suite which has that killer app Capture, which takes the image variables into consideration so graphic inclusion isn’t such a chore.
Posted by Charles in Software, Tech Writing, Technical Communication, Web 2.0 | Comment now »
When you find new authors it’s exciting to read their viewpoints. I initially started this blog with a thread of analysis of Adobe’s RoboHelp 6 release with which I was thoroughly underwhelmed. I had been watching the discussion on MonkeyPi previously, and part of the enjoyment of blogging is responding to what I call distributed discussions.
It’s interesting that today’s examples are all from Utah. Being a former Coloradan for several years I have to say it’s nice to see some of the Rocky Mountain crowd. Now let’s enjoy some distributed discussion of RoboHelp 7 and MadCap’s marketing.
First, a view from Paul Pehrson on RoboHelp 7’s competitive abilities with his analysis of Adobe playing the innovation catch-up game:
RoboHelp is now in catch-up mode trying to figure out how to emulate the innovative features in MadCap’s product suite. Now it is MadCap pushing the innovation envelope here.
Will RH be able to maintain pace with MadCap’s one (or more) releases per year? Will RH be able to come out with new features that aren’t already in Flare?
Maybe so, but RH 7 wasn’t proof of that yet. Again, it will be interesting to have this discussion in two years and see where the major players are at.
I found Ben Minson’s blog when he guest posted to Tom Johnson’s blog. Ben posted a critical thesis about MadCap’s marketing which, by the way, is a great opinion piece.
The thing that has bothered me the most about what has happened with RoboHelp and Flare is MadCap’s marketing approach, which caused “Flare” and “MadCap” to leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Granted, Macromedia’s treatment of the original RoboHelp team was probably less than professional. However, Hamilton seemed to make it his quest to blow RoboHelp to smithereens. It wasn’t business—it was personal. If he could carry that little ring to Mount Doom and throw it in the fire, it would be worth everything that happened in between.
In my research into my Web 2.0 Technical Support series about MadCap Software I hadn’t seen anything untoward expressed online or in print. They did, however, carry a gag gift of the die kadov tag die T-shirt, an inside joke about RoboHelp’s shortcomings.
In fact, in my podcast with Mike Hamilton in December 2007 he was neutral about Adobe. I asked Mike H. several tough and somewhat leading questions about RoboHelp and Adobe. Before, during, and after the podcast he never said anything truly outside the norm, and in fact was more generous than I was in his analysis regarding the level of dedication that Adobe may have with RoboHelp.
In my podcast program we find the relevant segment within the Hamilton podcast:
10:10
Clarifies MadCap’s focus on Adobe: “…we don’t care what Adobe does, we’re focused on solving the problems of the technical writing community… I want to dispel any myth that we’re chasing Adobe.”11:40
Why I started analyzing the space closer: MadCap’s openness in summer 2007.12:10
Thoughts on other blogger’s views about Adobe’s Technical Communications Suite (TCS) launch. Mike responds by comparing integration of tools within Flare and within Adobe TCS – Example of Capture’s integration with Flare to support the concept of single sourcing workflow.
We went into other discussion of workflow…
34:30
Remembering RoboHelp: we each discuss where RoboHelp came from and why it’s so different from this model MadCap’s following. Mike elaborates on the competitive edge MadCap has right now in integrating all of their products.36:40
Mike believes that both RoboHelp and Flare will be around for a long long time, of course he and I differ on this viewpoint. He does mention the caveat of how much innovation Adobe puts into RoboHelp being questionable which we both agree upon completely.
Posted by Charles in Blogging, Corporate Authenticity, Software, Tech Writing, Technical Communication, Web 2.0 | 1 Comment »
For some support may not be a factor in their software purchase decision. For others, it counts as a pivotal decision.
Today I’ll analyze the effects that the implementation of a successful Web 2.0 Technical Support strategy has on a corporation. As MadCap CEO Anthony Olivier stated last year, tech support wasn’t something they took lightly.
Update: I just found out Thursday that MadCap Software has won the ASP Online Support awards.
Continuing my previous Web 2.0 Tech Support case study, let’s revisit our initial external Web 2.0 participation of MadCap Software’s Technical Support and analyze the effects of their participation within the blogosphere and user groups.
I’ve already blogged about MadCap’s external Web 2.0 Tech Support efforts. It’s a strategy that has worked well for MadCap. If business can be described as warfare, almost from the very beginning there was an asymmetric war going on between Adobe and MadCap for the Technical Communication / Help Authoring Tool space.
In comparison I’ve witnessed a hardcore Product Manager / Evangelist approach to the Rich Internet Applications market in researching my Silverlight vs Flex analysis series. While that’s to be expected by career marketing staff, Tech Support Web 2.0 usage beyond the firewall is a more guerilla tactic.
Although the battle is far from over, in most online user accounts MadCap has been declared the victor currently as far as Tech Support goes. For some users, that’s a very important part of the buying decision.
That would be the ‘winning hearts and minds’ of asymmetric warfare. This gives another example of a classic military tactical description / acronym: The OODA Loop.
From Wikipedia: It has become an important concept in both business and military strategy. According to John Boyd, decision-making occurs in a cycle of observe-orient-decide-act. [OODA]
…Boyd theorized that large organizations such as corporations, governments, or militaries possessed a hierarchy of OODA loops at tactical, grand-tactical (operational art), and strategic levels.
In addition, he stated that most effective organizations have a highly decentralized chain of command that utilizes objective-driven orders, or directive control, rather than method-driven orders in order to harness the mental capacity and creative abilities of individual commanders at each level. He argued that such a structure would create a flexible “organic whole” that would be quicker to adapt to rapidly changing situations.
An entity (either an individual or an organization) that can process this cycle quickly, observing and reacting to unfolding events more rapidly than an opponent, can thereby “get inside” the opponent’s decision cycle and gain a military or business advantage.
MadCap’s gotten inside Adobe’s OODA loop regarding their customer service and if it’s a metric measured by comments from users, there is a large gap between them.
In this instance, by empowering their internal staff to participate in Web 2.0 conversations throughout the internet, I observed the MadCap TS staff multiply their effectiveness.
This is because each individual acts quickly and without undue delay for review from the hierarchy. Looking again at the ‘force multiplier’ aspect from Wikipedia:
Force multiplication through technology - A small force is multiplied when a small number of units are made as effective as a much larger one.
Honeybees don’t ask for permission to pollinate flowers and return to the hive, they just do it. Same with what I previously blogged about MadCap’s Web 2.0 strategy.
From Wikipedia about the OODA Loop:
…Since the OODA Loop was designed to describe a single decision maker, the situation is usually much worse than shown as most business and technical decisions have a team of people observing and orienting, each bringing their own cultural traditions, genetics, experience and other information.
It is no wonder that it is here that decisions often get stuck and the OODA Loop is reduced to the stuttering sound of “OO-OO-OO” [2]
In 2007 Adobe made two grave errors in the Technical Communication space. First, they canned the entire RoboHelp support team located in San Diego. Second, they were not quick enough to regain key support staff competency within the RoboHelp community.
MadCap quickly capitalized on this by hiring the brain trust of Adobe’s San Diego-based Tech Support and formulating a positive beyond the firewall Web 2.0 offensive. This was a strategic coup for Anthony Olivier. Yet another timely decision last year in hiring Var Galpchian after Adobe made her a free agent.
From Does Tech Support Count? Can Good Service Sell in the 21st Century? posted here in 2007:
The question is, will this create a better user experience, and therefore, a better product?
MadCap’s CEO thinks so: “We’ve made it our mission to deliver the ultimate customer experience through next-generation content solutions and a locally based, highly experienced support team that understands our users’ needs. It is a great honor to be recognized as a 2007 AeA High Tech Award finalist for our success in delivering on that goal,” said Anthony Olivier, MadCap CEO.
Although eHelp and Macromedia were both prior web support winners, Adobe is absent from this year’s 2008 ASP Online awards. Microsoft happens to be a four time winner, within the organization’s ‘Hall of Fame’. And now MadCap brings home its first ASP Online award.
With just a few of Adobe TCS staff (and not one Tech Support staffer) posting on external blogs to assist users it doesn’t seem as if the same level of trust exists within Adobe’s Technical Support staff as it does with MadCap’s Technical Support staff.
Posted by Charles in Blogging, Software, Technical Communication, Technical Support, Web 2.0 | 2 Comments »
Continuing my previous Web 2.0 Tech Support case study, let’s look again at the example of MadCap Software’s Technical Support. It’s not only the outbound use of Web 2.0, the internal use of Web 2.0 within MadCap is prevalent and highly structured.
Of course MadCap has been able to use this capability as a force multiplier regarding support staffing. I started this discussion last year with my blog post Does Tech Support Count? Can Good Service Sell in the 21st Century?
One of my commenters stated:
…I just don’t get why companies think that offering crappy, expensive support is a business model that will sustain customer relationships. Saving a few pennies in support will cost big bucks down the road.
But there are exceptions. Companies like Spectrum Brands (Remington shavers), Newegg, MadCap, and Versatrans - just to name a few - have outstanding support and are truly support leaders in their respective industries.
On top of that, they make great products or follow through with assistance or replacements every single time. Those companies have a bright future.
Update: Sarah O’Keefe has an excellent white paper titled Friend or Foe? Web 2.0 in Technical Communication which has a lot of overlap with my initial Tech Support / Good Service article last year. My analysis was initially inspired by Sarah’s post and her white paper is an excellent resource. Great minds think alike, Sarah.
One of my former business partners once told me that the key to any type of web commerce was giving people what they need within three clicks of their initial portal or entry point.
This kind of logical organized thinking simply reeks of competency…
Update: I just found out Thursday that MadCap Software has won the ASP Online Support awards.
First, PHP works quickly and is easy to search. There are ‘user forums’ out there which are awful to find information within their siloed content.
MadCap’s isn’t like that. The user community for MadCap is vocal, and I’ve said before, provides a rabid fan base for the products. These power users are the core around the community, and are global.
By giving the user a quick path to browse as a guest versus becoming involved, it eases the usability of the forums. It’s been my experience that the response level has been less than 24 hours for answers to be posted. And that’s on a weekend.
Additionally, the MadCap Tech Support staff lurk on those forums like tiger sharks around a school of bluefin tuna. If the MVPs can’t answer something well enough or fast enough there will inevitably be a request by one of the Tech Support staffers to examine the trouble closer.
By the way, the MadCap TS staff obviously enjoy including the users in the fun. Not many companies allow posting a well planned April Fools Day joke on a corporate website like this:
MadCap Ping Pong Released!
Madcap Software is proud to announce the Upcoming release of Madcap Ping Pong, With Madcap Ping Pong, your days of losing at Ping Pong are over.
The first product to provide help authors with instantaneous, controllable back spin.
This software will be the first product to have its own XML based Deflection Editor. Madcap Ping Pong skips right over the net other HATs get caught in.
Posted by Charles in Software, Technical Communication, Technical Support, Web 2.0 | Comment now »
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jun | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
RSS Feed for CharlesJeter.com