using graphics by reference in Word

In FrameMaker, you don't have to insert the actual graphics file into the FrameMaker file. Instead, you can "Import by Reference". This has a couple of advantages.

For one thing, if a figure ever changes, you just change the figure file itself, and the change happens automatically in the FrameMaker file. This is especially helpful for technical writing. Very often, you include screen shots of what the software interface looks like. As the product changes, so does the software interface. By using "Import by Reference", all you have to do is take the new screen shot, name it the same thing as the old screen shot, and save it in the same directory as the old screen shot. FrameMaker looks for the image by name, so it uses the new image with the old name automatically.

The other advantage is with file size. If you insert the images themselves into a FrameMaker file, it quickly gets ginormous (10s to 100s of MB), and is very unwieldy to save, open, move, and so forth. But, if you import the graphics by reference, there aren't any images in the FrameMaker file, only the links to the graphics files. So the FrameMaker file stays small (100s of KB) and easy to handle.

Now, I always thought that you couldn't do graphics by reference in Word documents. I thought that you had to embed the actual graphics into the Word file. Happily, I was wrong! As explained very thoroughly here:
http://www.labnol.org/software/insert-images-in-word-documents/8144/
it is very simple to insert graphics by reference into Word documents also.

This means that any Word documents grown ginormous because of embedded graphics can be slimmed down by turning each embedded graphic into a link. Plus, as above, the linked images change automatically in the document when you change the linked-to files.

It's not often that you find something built-in that makes technical writing easier. This is a pleasant surprise!

optimizing screenshots in FrameMaker for PDF output

I have to include a lot of screenshots in the documentation of my company’s user interface. I want them to be good quality, so that the user can easily read what’s in the screenshot and compare it to what they’re seeing on their monitor. But I’m also sensitive to the size of the resulting PDF. I don’t want users to have to handle a 20-MB PDF file. This means I have to balance the size and quality of the screenshot on the page with the size of the resulting PDF.

I have done a number of experiments with a variety of image formats and a range of dpi values. Here are a few of the things I’ve learned:
• PNG is a good file format for saving screenshots, because the quality of the image file is high. However, PNG is one of those formats that can include compression. So, turn off any compression in your screen capture program. On my program (IrfanView), that means Compression Level 0. The resulting PNG files might be large (1-5 MB), but that doesn’t mean the eventual PDF will be large.
• For some reason, FrameMaker seems to “like” 72 dpi. Not sure why this is. When images are 72 dpi, they seem to come out clearer than other dpi settings. So, when you capture a screen, not only do you save it as a PNG file, but you adjust the dpi of the image to 72 dpi. I know, you want 300 dpi. But you know what? For the purposes of an image on a PDF page, that amount of detail is overkill.
• Capture the screen as close to the size of the eventual displayed image as possible. If the eventual image on the page is going to be 5 inches across, you don’t need a 20-inch image. I wouldn’t go more than 2 times the size of the eventual displayed image.
• In FrameMaker, when you import the image, I suggest “Import By Reference” rather than “Copy Into Document”, for a couple of reasons. First, if you “Copy Into Document”, the size of the FrameMaker file itself gets very large. This doesn’t affect the size of the eventual PDF file, but it can make the FrameMaker file a little unwieldy to save, open, and close. Also, if you “Import By Reference”, you can change the image in the document just by changing the referenced file. For example, suppose you capture an image of a screen and import the image by reference into the document. Then the design team changes the screen slightly. All you have to do is capture the new image and save it with the SAME NAME as the original image file. The image in the FrameMaker file will automatically use the new image file when you open the document. That can save you a lot of time in re-importing the new image.
• In FrameMaker, use the Object Properties pane to adjust the Scaling of the imported image. For example, if you did as I suggested above, the captured image might be 2 times the size of what you want the displayed image to be, so you would use a scaling of 50% to get it to be the right size. I suggest you use scalings that are nice powers of 2. 50% = ½, 25% = ¼, that kind of thing. If you need something in between, again use a multiple of one of these, like 37.5% = 3/8.
• When you generate the PDF from the FrameMaker file, don’t fuss around with the options for image handling in the PDF controls. You’ll only make things worse. If you start with a good quality image, in uncompressed PNG format, at 72 dpi, scaled to the size you want, FrameMaker does a good job most of the time and you should get good results.

By all means, experiment if you want. Perhaps your images work better with another file format, another dpi, and so forth. But these settings have been giving me good results – good quality with a reasonable size PDF – so I’m sticking with them for now.

looking for a font that delivers? try Georgia or Baskerville

Interesting article about font choices and the impact they have on readers:
http://theweek.com/article/index/245632/how-typeface-influences-the-way-we-read-and-think?utm_source=twitter

Results of informal studies suggest that Baskerville is more "believable," which can be useful when writing to sway opinions.

Readers seem to prefer reading Georgia than Times New Roman.


Here's the above, in Georgia. You tell me.

Interesting article about font choices and the impact they have on readers:
http://theweek.com/article/index/245632/how-typeface-influences-the-way-we-read-and-think?utm_source=twitter

Results of informal studies suggest that Baskerville is more "believable," which can be useful when writing to sway opinions.

Readers seem to prefer reading Georgia than Times New Roman.

Using borders in Word

http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/TblsFldsFms/Borders.htm

New Jobs Indeed!

Technical writers tend to move from job to job. That's partly because many companies eliminated actual technical writing departments long ago, and only take on contract writers when they have the need. It's also partly because many people get into technical writing part-time, long-distance, which isn't the way permanent jobs usually work.

In any event, part of a technical writer's life is to be on the lookout for that perfect opportunity, just the right match between skills, preferences, and requirements. And that used to mean keeping up with up to a dozen job search sites, like Monster, Dice, and CareerBuilder. Well, here's one site that may give you all you need to search for jobs: indeed.

www.indeed.com lets you do simple searches – like keyword and location – and instantly displays all matching jobs, from thousands of career websites. A recent search on the phrase "technical writer" and my zip code yielded over 350 jobs. In two clicks, I had narrowed this to only jobs with the title of technical writer and only full-time positions.

If you're looking for a job – and if you aren't now, you will be one day – give indeed.com a try. I don't think you're going to find a more extensive, and easy, way to find your next position.

Heard It Through the Grapevine

Technical writers make good friends. Maybe that's because so many of us work as freelancers, moving from company to company. You need to make friends fast, get along with a variety of people, and quickly recognize who makes a good contact and who doesn't.

Whatever the reason, technical writers often pick up friends and contacts at each place they work, or at whatever publication they do an assignment for. Pretty soon, you find out that a good source of new job leads is the group of technical writers you've come to know.

For instance, I used to work at BYTE Magazine, and I'm still in touch with a half a dozen folks from there, many of them freelancers like myself. Then there are the people I've worked with at EMC, Baltimore Technologies, Intel, and other contract positions. Plus editors I've worked with at Information Security, Government Computer News, and other publications. Not to mention friends from high school and college who also work as technical writers.

So, I keep a little mailing list of these tech writer buddies. When I hear about a job possibility, I let them know about it. Yes: even the jobs I myself am interested in. Why not? What goes around comes around, and I'd rather have thirty people sharing their leads with me than hogging one possibility to myself.

There are more formal networking groups also. For example, if you live in New England, there is NinaNet, started by a technical writer named Nina Eppes. NinaNet is an association of technical writers who have mostly never met each other. When we hear about jobs, we forward them to NinaNet (ninanet-writers@yahoogroups.com), which automatically forwards them to everyone in the group.

There may be a similar group near you. Ask your technical writer buddies. Or maybe it's time for you to start one yourself.

Get Certified

There aren't many ways to demonstrate your competence at technical writing. That's clear just from looking at ads for permanent or contract positions. These ads never say "Technical Writer Certification required" – because there is no such thing. Instead, they blather on about how you have to know Word and FrameMaker (duh!), or have a degree in journalism or maybe English or perhaps a technical topic, along with a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome.

Therefore, any objective evidence that you possess some sort of mastery of the tools of technical writing would be a boost to your career. Something you can put on your resume, and mention offhandedly in your cover letter. And there really is such a thing.

Microsoft offers a certification program in its Office products, including Word, PowerPoint, Excel, and Access. You can take a test in your expertise in using one of these applications and, assuming you do well enough, obtain a certificate attesting that you are, in fact, Microsoft Certified.

There is, naturally, a catch. It costs money to take the tests. Unless…

Allow me to bore you with my reminiscences for a moment. A few years ago, when I was between paying positions, as the expression goes, I signed up to be a temp office worker with one of the Robert Half Organization branches. When they found out that I was experienced in Word and other MS Office apps, they asked if I wanted to be tested for Microsoft certification – for free. I said sure, took several tests, and am now Microsoft Certified in Word, Excel, and PowerPoint.

Now, when an ad says "experience in Word", I can say that, not only am I experienced in Word, I'm Microsoft Certified in Word. Impressive, no?

My advice, therefore, is to hunt around among the Robert Half groups – and other agencies that place office workers – and see if any of them have a similar deal going. For a little time on your part, you could receive a handsome certificate suitable for framing – and a real credential you can use to land jobs forever.