standalone has plainly readable transcript

[Dar Scott]

On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 06:30 PM, 
revolution at knowledgeworks.plus.com wrote:

> I think it is very far-sighted of him to see that the needless railing 
> against the Rev docs can affect other users' perceptions of the 
> quality of the docs and the quality of Rev.

I did not see Victor's mail as "needless railing".

He made a simple point that when a user of a manual says he did not 
make the connection, the manual is failing.  I think this is a valid 
point.  I would have put it weaker; the manual writer can take it as a 
data point in considering ways to improve the manual.  For example, I 
imagine Jeanne pays attention to each indication that a user did not 
understand the manual correctly.  (It would be quite appropriate to 
give up on my misunderstandings, though.)  Was this off topic and 
needless?  Perhaps, but it was small and made a reminder that we all 
can benefit from.  Was it harmful?  In isolation it might discourage 
some from using the documentation.  However, I viewed it in the context 
of positive mail concerning the documentation.

I think his comment about style was overstated, but it did encourage 
writers to avoid hiding behind "It is in the manual."  I think the 
situation simply triggered a pet-peeve.  Even though the style 
situation did not match, the soap box was calling.  I think we can be 
tolerant of that and recognize it for what it is.  Doing that, we can 
learn from it and chock it up as part of what is important to Victor.

Victor's mail was short and it was, I think, in isolation.  It was not 
"needless railing".

Let's give him some slack.

Dar Scott