Thanks for the extra info about the intended audiences. I am hoping this survey will be done in the proper way, i.e. using one of the free online survey tools, rather than sending them in e-mails. Given that assumption, it would be a good idea to have a first question determine whether respondents know anything about DITA or not. If not, we need not ask them about DITA in their organisation and should not refer to the DITA name but instead ask for the tools and formats they are currently using to create product documentation and/or marketing materials.
If I am a casual author and I see questions about some acronym I do not even know, I will quickly decide this survey is not for me. And I am wild guessing that for us the responses of these casual authors would be more interesting than the ones from DITA-savvy authors (who do not need LWDITA themselves but are imagining what others in their organization might want or need).
In fact, the survey should be designed to have clear and separate paths. Asking questions that are irrelevant based on earlier answers is deadly for the enthusiasm of a respondent.
Op 30 juni 2016 03:15:24 +02:00, schreef Michael Priestley <>:
Hi Jang,
We need to be clear that we're asking
both existing users of DITA (not currently LWDITA), and potential users
of DITA (especially LWDITA). We do ask about potential benefits in question
8, although definitely open to identifying/asking for more.
The first question is for existing users,
the second for potential users. I think really all of the questions except
for the first one are meant to be about current (and presumably mostly
non-DITA) practice.
Question 3 shouldn't mention LWDITA
at all - I think it was originally about source format, and it's now a
mix of source formats and editor tools - we need to go with one or the
other. It sort of depends on survey audience - developers might be more
comfortable answering the format question (which is one I do care about
- especially knowing if we have JSON to deal with), authors will be more
comfortable with the tool question.
Agreed on the mistake in block elements
- <pre> is preformatted text, not prerequisites. Good catch.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
From:
<>
To:
Cc:
<>
Date:
06/28/2016 02:34 PM
Subject:
Re: [dita-lightweight-dita]
Thoughts on a survey
Sent by:
<>
The wording of several questions in this survey speaks
to current users of LW-DITA, of which there will not be too many, as we
are still in a concept phase of defining it. To get input from areas that
we hope to be targeting with LW-DITA, this should be changed to address
their current practice and ask what advantages they would expect from using
LW-DITA. Depending on the target audience for the survey, an introduction
about DITA vs LW-DITA might or might not be relevant.
Question 3 seems to lean toward a community that is currently
using other lightweight content solutions, but asks which tools are being
used to create LW-DITA content. I would expect not a single option to be
checked by anyone. The question seems to ask which tools are currently
used to create the type of content that could be authored in LW-DITA, but
as hardly anyone knows LW-DITA that should be described in a different
manner. JSON should be removed from the list of authoring tools in any
case, as it is a format, not a tool.
Apart from these general remarks, I believe there is at
least one error in the elements listed for question 6. The [pre] element
is Preformatted text. If Prerequisite is meant, it should be [prereq],
but I don't think that is one of the basic block elements for generic authoring.
My 2 cents.
Op 28 juni 2016 19:34:30 +02:00, schreef :
I reviewed the survey and cleaned it up a bit. Here's what
I came up with:
The Lightweight DITA committee
wants to understand more about how DITA is, and could be, used inside of
organisations to manage their content more efficiently and get more benefit
from their content.
Using DITA allows users to
[fill in here with description of lightweight DITA]
1. Which
of the following roles are creating DITA today in your organization?
Choose as many options as apply. If possible, point us to an example by
providing a URL for each type of content you now produce using DITA.
[will need to have clearly-indicated
field for URLs or comments]
Content designers
Content developers
Content editors
Customer support staff
Embedded assistance authors
Help/UA authors
Marketing communicators
Policy and procedure authors
Product documentation authors
Sales people
Trainers - Non-technical
Trainers - technical
Software Designers
Software Developers
Support staff (Pas)
Subject matter experts - non-technical
(eg marketing)
Subject matter experts - technical
Other (specify)
2. In
which content areas are you considering Lightweight DITA? Choose as many
options as apply. If possible, point us to an example by providing a URL
for each type of content you would like to produce using DITA.
[will need to have clearly-indicated
field for URLs or comments]
Content designers
Content developers
Content editors
Customer support staff
Embedded assistance authors
Help/UA authors
Marketing communicators
Policy and procedure authors
Product documentation authors
Sales people
Trainers - Non-technical
Trainers - technical
Software Designers
Software Developers
Support staff (Pas)
Subject matter experts - non-technical
(eg marketing)
Subject matter experts - technical
Other (specify)
3. What
authoring tools do you use to write your content in Lightweight DITA?
Help Authoring Tool (if so,
which one)
HTML editor
JSON
Markdown
Microsoft Word
XML editor
Other (specify)
4. What
delivery formats are important for your use of LW DITA?
ePub
HTML
JSON
Microsoft Word
PDF
XML
Other (specify)
6 - Lightweight DITA has the
following "block-level" elements [plain English definition].
Are there are elements that you would consider important to be missing
from this list?
Figure [fig]
Footnote [fn]
List - Definition [dl]
List - Ordered (numbered [ol]
List - Unordered (bulleted)
[ul]
Multimedia - Audio [audio]
Multimedia - Video [video]
Note [note]
Paragraph [p]
Prerequisite statement [pre]
Table - Simple [simpletable]
[Add any missing elements.]
7. Some
organisations may want to specialize (customise) Lightweight DITA for their
specific content needs. If you plan to specialize, which of the following
capabilities are must-haves?
Being able to have containers
within containers? (Nested div structures for deep containment specializations)
The ability to choose which
attributes you add to content? (Base attributes for arbitrary attribute
definition)
The ability to re-use a central
specialization (Multiple-level specialization - the ability to specialize
off other specializations, not just topic)
8. Which
of the following benefits/features of LW DITA matter to you?
Simpler XML authoring
HTML5 authoring
Markdown authoring
Easier specialization
Easier tools development
Cross-silo content sharing
Cross-silo tool sharing
Other (specify)
9. If
we have questions or want more information about your answer, could we
contact you to followup? If so, please provide an email address.
