Talk:Technical communication tools

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


FrameMaker is a "wordprocessor"?

Word processor is two words?

iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:02, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Just following what is shown at Word processors as regards Frame being a processor. I've always considered it to me two words. Did I accidently type it as one word somewhere?--GeoffPurchase 04:16, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
Ah. I guess I haven't had to use that word in a long while—figured it would have evolved into one by now :D.
Though I guess we need to look at those classifications a bit.iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


Is this article the place to compare the strengths and weaknesses of different tools (like say, oh...Word vs. Frame :D)?iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes... I wonder how long it will be before someone adds their POV, rather than a NPOV. After having seen some of what goes on in other areas of wikipedia, I'm sure it will reach us at some point.--GeoffPurchase 12:21, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Basic Tools[edit]

Shouldn't there be some mention of pen and ink ?Frelke 01:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article is titled "Technical communication tools" but begins "Technical communicators use". Is the article about (1) communication tools that happen to be technical or is it about (2) the tools that a technical communicator uses? They are not the same thing. If the answer is (2) the article title should revised.

How is a "Technical communicator's" toolset different from a "Communicator's"? toolset? Writers, editors, illustrators, architects/planners, experts, and their tool requirements would seem to be common to most professional non-fiction writing tasks. (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chobbs405 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)I believe this whole entry would be strengthened by combining the topic with technical writing and broadening it. See Solving Problems in Technical Communication, JohnDan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A Selber, eds. for updated material (STC is good but not all there is--some academic sources would be helpful as well.) It just seems that both these entries are pretty shallow alone. Why is one writing and one communicating? What is the hierarchy? Chobbs405 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most commonly used XML editors[edit]

I haven't been able to find substantiation in the sources given for the statement, "The most commonly used XML editors are Arbortext, Oxygen, Syntext Serna, XMLmind, and XMetaL.[1][2]". Can anyone quote the passages from the sources that backs up this claim? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why is LaTeX not mentioned here? After all, it is one of the most popular programs used for technical reports in academia, as well as for typesetting technical books. (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested merger[edit]

Being a technical communicator myself, I find it odd that our tools would deserve a separate entry on Wikipedia. If a tool is notable enough, it can have its own entry. A simple paragraph on the main Technical communication entry mentioning that we use these tools would be enough. Unfortunately, the creator of this entry hasn't been active for six years so there doesn't seem to be any way to ask him for his justification. I think we ought to just merge this as a section at technical communication, the main article which is already threadbare as it is. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks to me like the merger has already occurred. This article (Technical_communication_tools) now redirects to Technical_communication. Bill (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ Bob Doyle. "XML Editors Review",, June 20, 2006.
  2. ^ Bob Doyle. ""DITA Tools from A to Z"" (PDF)., pp. 10-11,, April, 2008.