The effects of structured authoring covers systems other than actual content editing where it at least supports them better than direct text editing does. For example, revisioning, which involves dividing content to separately controlled revisions, is easier when the content already consists of independently controlled modules. In the same vein, workflow, which consists of an arrangement to coordinate roles during the different phases of content creation, is also readily applied to smaller units of content. Users can, for example, review individual modules in different phases of production.
This article on the differences involved in deploying structured authoring is the third installment in this series on the subject. Links to the two previous installments are found below:
Content Revisions
To be precise, revisions are a feature of content management systems and not structured authoring itself. However, DoX CMS includes both and understanding their interactions is a significant part of understanding the benefits of structured authoring. It is thus worthwhile to discuss the subject in more detail.
How would revisions be done alongside direct text editing rather than structured authoring?
In this respect, the determining factor is how contained the parts to which content will be divided end up being.
The size of pieces of content in direct text editing depends on when content starts from a new page as well as the method for compiling and publishing the content.
Since the main benefit of direct text editing is the ability to detemine the layout as part of content creation, this layout cannot be allowed to change when the content is compiled. The only means of ensuring said result is to start each new piece of content from a new page as this resets the possible effects of the preceding section.
As a result, content cannot be separated into independent modules except when they each start from a new page. Some documents may thus contain no form of content division for purposes of revisions. The more sections are set to start from a new page, though, the less benefit is still gained from the ability to control the layout yourself. An important benefit otherwise gained in this way would be the ability to optimize the use of page space by filling spaces with content.
If said content is divided into sections which each start from a new page, you must also be able to bring it together in a manner which properly accounts for page numbering, for example. If the publishing method does not account for such details, it becomes practically impossible to divide content from direct text editing beyond the level of separate publications.
How does structured authoring differ in this respect?
All content made with structured authring will be modular and thus the revisions for each section can be controlled independently.
This entails that individual modules can be updated based on need without you ever needing to add further drafts of the parts of the document beyond them. Updates may thus also be pinpointed more readily as part of content management as each section is more limited in scope.
For example, a larger section on three independently described phases of a maintenance check would allow each phase to be separated into its own module. This can also be done with direct text editing but for the reasons described above, it would be more realistic for the whole three part maintenance check to be used as the smallest independently controlled unit in that instance. As such, updates to one part would involve revisiting the three part total. If the changes being made are impactful enough to require updating the layout of the rest of the content, this must be done manually throughout the section. Alternatively, the description of the changes must verbally pinpoint which parts of the whole have been changed. The more comprehensive such sections are – and they may well consist of whole documents – the more widespread the effects entailed by such changes become.
In the same situation, structured authoring lets the sections for each phase be modified independently of each other. Once they are compiled into a publication, the layout of remaining content will still be based on the same rules as before. There will be no need to edit other content to adapt it to such changes. The made changes can also be described more briefly because they will not include the more widespread adaptations to content. Any changes can be observed at a glance when the used program lets you compare the different revisions of the same content side by side. DoX CMS has such a feature.
Strictured authoring thus makes content revisions more focused. The need for change is almost invariably limited only to the primary sections being modified. In the case of direct text editing, the more content each of the sections being revisioned contains, the more widespread the need for changes will be during each update. For this reason, structured authoring makes updates easier to implement. Because the relations involved with larger wholes need not be maintained directly, specific changes will not entail the need for further actions.
Workflow
The workflow consists of dividing content creation to a set of phases connected by predetermined available transitions. Both the process of translation and the review process for the various drafts of a piece of content are a part of it. Because different drafts in particular ought to be made into distinct revisions, a functional workflow often also requires proper revisioning of content.
The independently controlled content modules for structured authoring may each move through the workflow at their own pace. As such, content that is ready to proceed need not wait for the larger whole to be ready before it can be reviewed and updated accordingly. Additionally, the layout being automated allows content to be written and processed in any order. When the preceding section still only exists as a first draft, some of the sections after it may well already have been approved. In the case of direct text editing, the preceding sections would affect setting the layout for the the rest of them.
In practice, structured authoring allows for parallel processing of content instead of being limited to sequential processing, and thus, those involved need not concern themselves with managing the whole at the same time.
Some of the content used in the same set of documents may still be being prepared while other parts are being reviewed or translated. When a new project that reuses previous content starts, all content shared between them is allowed to stay approved during the writing of additional content. Should they instead be added to the same file for direct text editing, they could not remain approved in the same way. Firstly, the way in which the content in question settles as part of the whole would require reviewing it again. Secondly, such content would not be discernible from new content without being specifically marked as separate from it.
In this respect, structured authoring allows for greated freedom to move content around in the workflow based only on its own state at the time. The state of surrounding content does not affect proceeding in the workflow in the same way as it does for pieces of content where their layouts interact, for example.
Already prepared content stays separate, of course, when it need not be included as part of the content being modified.
Summary
It remains a good idea to check how content made with the help of structured authoring settles into the final publication once it is all done.
However, the majority of the workflow can be divided between modules that proceed in it independently in the described manner. In turn, this both speeds up content creation and makes complementing and otherwise updating content easier to handle.
Just imagine two hourglasses. One is filled with grains of sand. The other is filled with pitch. The contents of both will pass through the hourglass over time. Grains of sand will proceed steadily, though, as pitch squeezes through slowly before dropping to the bottom in one piece.
Each turn of the hourglass represents a necessary phase in the workflow as content moves through several drafts before being translated.
Such effects are thus cumulative based on how often the content is re-processed or amended.
For this reason, it is important to focus any changes with greater accuracy. The ability to add module-specific revisions that structured authoring provides helps with this as well.
As part of the workflow for structured authoring, it is possible to first prepare the reusable parts of the base material and send them to be reviewed, for example. While these contents are being reviewed, users may write any parts related to specific products.
Even though revisions and the workflow are not uniquely part of structured authoring, it is a better fit for these aspects of content management than direct text editing can manage. Working on smaller pieces of content supports both more focused revisions and a more dynamic workflow.