Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.33]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.sas-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:20:17 MDT
Reply-To:     knechod@stacc.med.utah.edu
From:         Kevin Nechodom <knechod@STACC.MED.UTAH.EDU>
Subject:      Re: On-line documentation
Comments: To: SAS Mailing List <sas-l@uga.cc.uga.edu>
              "brobinso@leven.appcomp.utas.edu.au" at Sep 15, 92 12:24 (noon)

brobinso@leven.appcomp.utas.edu.au (Barrie Robinson) wrote:
> >From: Marsha Shepherd <ACMARSHA@ECUVM1.BITNET>
> >I'm the SAS rep at a university.  The idea of on-line documentation
> >horrifies me.
> > . . . .
> >Reason 2:  The manuals are cheaper than CD drives.
> >Reason 3:  . . . .  Neither we nor our users can afford
> >to buy disk drives just so we can read a manual.  (The manuals are cheaper!)
> >We already spend a lot of time "trimming" SAS to fit on user machines.
> >Additional disk space just for manuals would be impossible for us.

> How many sets of manuals does the institution buy? Surely the disc space
> for one set of on-line manuals would be cheaper than 100 sets of manuals?
> >
> >Reason 4:  We KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE that the first thing many of our users
> >do is print the on-line documentation.  Why is this a problem?  Because
> >we are footing the bill for paper.  . . .

> I would have thought there would be some way in which the info could be
> made available on-line, but impossible (or difficult) to print out.

> Barrie Robinson,                  |email:
> brobinso@leven.appcomp.utas.edu.au
> University of Tasmania at Launceston.  |phone:  (61)(03)260211

I'm speaking from a certain bias, because I'm on a Unix machine with
CD-ROM (used for system/application updates and online system
documentation).  Therefore, I already have the core of what would be
needed, and the investment would only be whatever SAS supplied.  I'm
hearing about the joys and the evils of on-line documentation, and all
of the reasons ARE valid.  However, what needs to be said is that THAT
is a decision that we, as system managers, should be allowed to make!

Manuals are wonderful!  I can't take my CD-ROM home to read up on a
proc.  On-line documentation is wonderful!  I can't cross-reference
every occurrence of the partial word PUT* from my manual set very
simply.  My current documentation is up-to-date, I get a CD every month
with the full manual set.  If I'm looking up a topic, I don't have to
worry that there might be an addendum somewhere that augments or (worse)
negates the manuals.

Now, with that said, I can imagine what the documentation people
within SAS are thinking, "They want us to write for the special
formats of IBM, DEC, HP, PC, etc.!  Are they out of their minds?!"
Yes, we are!  We want the world; we want the stars; and we want it for
$50! ;-) But we'll take a platform-independent format.  It would be
NICE if we were able to work with our own programs (sorry, I only know
HP's LaserROM), but if it takes SAS/Lookup to read a SAS CD, so be it!

I sympathize with Marsha.  Addressing her concerns is not easy!  But
the solution is for her to say, "Until SAS (or my system vendors) can
address these issues, I can't buy it!"  That puts the responsibility
where it should be; on 'us' to make good decisions and on 'them' to
make those choices possible.

--
Kevin Nechodom UofU STACC        | Great minds talk about ideas.
 UofU doesn't even know I exist; | Good minds talk about things.
 how would they care what I say? | Little minds talk about other people.
knechod@stacc.med.utah.edu       | Which are you? (paraphrased from old RD)