I do suspect target count is important. If I'm linking to a target in the
content I'm editing (likely a smallish, manageable chunk), then a simple
list or table seems desirable. If I'm linking to a target not present in
the content I'm editing, then I will want a tree representing the possible
targets for the entire document.
I didn't mention the possibility of a database (multiple lists/tables
separated by target type) but I guess that's relevant too. But table
titles, for example, are repeated and differentiating / providing context
becomes complex or not-usable without bringing yourself back to a tree ...
anyhow.
But ... those are my preferences ... but I neither author nor think like an
author in many cases so ...
Clay: UX Testing. I like it. I don't ever get to do it. I have had several
conversations over the last few whiles about "telemetry" as one of my
industry pals calls it ... programmatic monitoring of user and application
behavior. Logging. Counting. Whatever you want to call it. That might be
fun (and smart) to try and build into SOMEthing I'm working on. My buddy
uses it when he can to be able to provide evidence to engineering (he's in
support) about where the code is generating the most customer
calls/knowledgebase searches.
David: How do you keep your data current? Do you have agreed upon "linkbase
refresh" points in the authoring cycles? Or is it something authors request
when needed? Or do you run a nightly job? Or some other strategy?
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Taylor, David S. <
david.s.taylor@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
> Does the number of potential targets have a bearing in choosing the
> preferred method?****
>
> ** **
>
> Our documents use a
> 'part.section.subsection.article.sentence.clause.subclause' number scheme.
> Our authors initially asked for a list but changed their minds because of
> the size of the list, up to approx. 8,000 entries in our large books. We
> finally ended up implementing an external tool that allows them to type in
> the target number and returns the corresponding id value for them to
> copy/paste into the refid attribute.****
>
> ** **
>
> That's more overhead for me, keeping the tool 'data' current, but less
> time for the authors. Since they out-number me by 20 to 1…****
>
> ** **
>
> David****
>
> ** **
>
> *David S. Taylor*
>
>
> *Project Manager, *Structured Information
> Production and Marketing | Building Regulations | *NRC Construction*****
>
> Building M-23A, Room 114 | 1200 Montreal Road | Ottawa, ON | K1A 0R6****
>
> Telephone: 613-990-2731 | Fax: 613-952-4040
> David.S.Taylor@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Paul Nagai [
> question****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Do your authors prefer a list, table, or tree view of potential targets
> for cross references? Does it vary depending on task?
> ****
>
>
> --
> Paul Nagai
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **