Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Use case: Social group collaboration

Expand Messages
  • nodyad
    Several wiki-hosting sites focus their services on hosting social groups that are dedicated to common interests, such as fan pages, hobby pages, movie
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 7 10:51 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Several wiki-hosting sites focus their services on hosting social groups that are dedicated to common interests, such as fan pages, hobby pages, movie commentaries, collections, and so forth. I have one such page out there dedicated to my antique camera collection, for example, and my American Idol searches often bring up AI fan pages on wiki aggregation sites.

      Due to the generally free form nature of these types of sites, I have a hard time making a case for "DITA under the covers" for these, particularly since the users might be one-time visitors for whom a text-only entry field is perfectly adequate for adding comments to a themed page.

      However, I'm willing to be disabused of that thought. Is there a case at all for providing a DITA-enabled wiki for this type of "virtual break room" gathering place?

      --
      Don Day
    • Darryl Tewes
      Hi Don - I m coming from an enterprise technical content background, but one of my recent areas of interest is looking at online communities of practice to
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 8 8:03 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment

        Hi Don –

        I’m coming from an enterprise technical content background, but one of my recent areas of interest is looking at online ‘communities of practice’ to see how techpubs groups might evolve from content providers into community facilitators.  To me, DITA under the covers does seem like overkill for casual visitors, but has considerable value for self-structured communities; as a community forms project- and task- related subgroups, common semantics and information interoperability could be invaluable in supporting short-term goals and deliverables while allowing for flexibility and evolution over the long-term.

         

        -dt

         

        From: dita-wikis@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dita-wikis@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nodyad
        Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:52 AM
        To: dita-wikis@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [dita-wikis] Use case: Social group collaboration

         

         

        Several wiki-hosting sites focus their services on hosting social groups that are dedicated to common interests, such as fan pages, hobby pages, movie commentaries, collections, and so forth. I have one such page out there dedicated to my antique camera collection, for example, and my American Idol searches often bring up AI fan pages on wiki aggregation sites.

        Due to the generally free form nature of these types of sites, I have a hard time making a case for "DITA under the covers" for these, particularly since the users might be one-time visitors for whom a text-only entry field is perfectly adequate for adding comments to a themed page.

        However, I'm willing to be disabused of that thought. Is there a case at all for providing a DITA-enabled wiki for this type of "virtual break room" gathering place?

        --
        Don Day

      • nodyad
        ... Spot on, Darryl. At IBM, about half of our pilot projects on the IBM DITA Wiki were members of workgroups who needed a way to collaborate on content that
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 29 11:28 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In dita-wikis@yahoogroups.com, "Darryl Tewes" <darryltewes@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Don -
          >
          > I'm coming from an enterprise technical content background, but one of my
          > recent areas of interest is looking at online 'communities of practice' to
          > see how techpubs groups might evolve from content providers into community
          > facilitators. To me, DITA under the covers does seem like overkill for
          > casual visitors, but has considerable value for self-structured communities;
          > as a community forms project- and task- related subgroups, common semantics
          > and information interoperability could be invaluable in supporting
          > short-term goals and deliverables while allowing for flexibility and
          > evolution over the long-term.
          >

          Spot on, Darryl.

          At IBM, about half of our pilot projects on the IBM DITA Wiki were members of workgroups who needed a way to collaborate on content that would eventually become corporate collateral. As of my retirement last month, some of these groups included:

          ID Standards: identifying the expectations for quality, process, and certification of content going to customers.

          DITA Advocates: creating best practices and tutorials for peers.

          Various process defining teams, such as Translation practices and editors' councils.

          Collaboration by developers on help materials and messages for an internal tools project that had no actual ID development funding for the embedded content.

          Developing specifications for emerging APIs or standards.

          Developing whitepapers for very specific solution use cases.

          Developing marketing requirements in a standard format.

          That's just a few--there were many more cases that did not make it into pilot stage while I was there. IBM is not alone in having many kinds of information within the enterprise (and not just ID alone!) that are outside of the tools and processes used for the bread-and-butter customer documentation.
          --
          Don Day
        • Darryl Tewes
          Thanks, Don - Re: communities of practice: Internal collaborations on content that evolves into corporate IP is definitely on the spectrum; so is the work of
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 30 7:40 AM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment

            Thanks, Don –

            Re: communities of practice:  Internal collaborations on content that evolves into corporate IP is definitely on the spectrum; so is the work of technical standards committees, which bring together folks with different affiliations, interests, roles, etc. but working toward some fairly well-defined goals. Farther out on the spectrum are potentially very diverse communities in terms of histories, experience, interest, roles, vocabularies, etc. that may come together with only vague notions of what needs to be done, and may end up producing content that could not have been anticipated before the community formed organically. DITA, especially under the cover of a lightweight low-barrier editor, really has a lot to offer communities that need to organize content on their own terms.    

             

            From: dita-wikis@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dita-wikis@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nodyad
            Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:29 AM
            To: dita-wikis@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [dita-wikis] Re: Use case: Social group collaboration

             

             



            --- In dita-wikis@yahoogroups.com, "Darryl Tewes" <darryltewes@...> wrote:

            >
            > Hi Don -
            >
            > I'm coming from an enterprise technical content background, but one of my
            > recent areas of interest is looking at online 'communities of practice' to
            > see how techpubs groups might evolve from content providers into community
            > facilitators. To me, DITA under the covers does seem like overkill for
            > casual visitors, but has considerable value for self-structured
            communities;
            > as a community forms project- and task- related subgroups, common semantics
            > and information interoperability could be invaluable in supporting
            > short-term goals and deliverables while allowing for flexibility and
            > evolution over the long-term.
            >

            Spot on, Darryl.

            At IBM, about half of our pilot projects on the IBM DITA Wiki were members of workgroups who needed a way to collaborate on content that would eventually become corporate collateral. As of my retirement last month, some of these groups included:

            ID Standards: identifying the expectations for quality, process, and certification of content going to customers.

            DITA Advocates: creating best practices and tutorials for peers.

            Various process defining teams, such as Translation practices and editors' councils.

            Collaboration by developers on help materials and messages for an internal tools project that had no actual ID development funding for the embedded content.

            Developing specifications for emerging APIs or standards.

            Developing whitepapers for very specific solution use cases.

            Developing marketing requirements in a standard format.

            That's just a few--there were many more cases that did not make it into pilot stage while I was there. IBM is not alone in having many kinds of information within the enterprise (and not just ID alone!) that are outside of the tools and processes used for the bread-and-butter customer documentation.
            --
            Don Day

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.