Buying Adobe Elements?

--- snip for brevity. ---

It wouldn't work like that at all.

In an outfit like Nikon which has been producing new product and
writing new manuals for donkey's years, where manuals are concerned,
there would be a corporate style manual. It would cover everyting from
content, style of writing, page sizes, font, graphics, binding etc
etc. All departments are likely to have input into the style manual,
particularly the marketing department as this manual will shape the
product documentation which the customer will see. This is all part of
forming corporate image and branding. No doubt finished manuals would
have to be checked for final approval before being released to the
public.

The way you have described (which I deleted) sounds more like the kind
of thing which an unimaginative government bureacracy would do: all
the agility of a pyramid.

If your deleted view of how things might be done forms the basis of
your rejection of the comments previously directed in your direction,
then I can understand your reaction. But it is totally misguided.

 

I'm pretty much out. What he doesn't want to acknowledge is
"irrelevant". He thinks expressing an ill-formed opinion repeatedly
is "substantiation". What he can't fathom gets a "No" reply. He
doesn't understand that word/term definitions evolve and shape-change
by culture. He may think "ideomatic" is an insult.

 

Yes, that's what I thought too. I had to ask, because it seemed so
strange of you to bring that up now, as if anyone has talked about
whether or not they have any such control before. I certainly have not.[/QUOTE]

I didn't bring it up.

 

An individual in the US who engages in business can file a (IRS)
Schedule C deducting business expenses. Expenses can be incurred and
deducted before revenue is attained. The pursuit of revenue is a
legitimate activity. (I'm not sure what "T&L" is. Travel and
lodging?)

A depreciation schedule can be set up prior to establishing accounts
or attaining revenue.

The IRS, until an audit occurs, has no way of knowing if an individual
using a Schedule C is really engaged in business. Most abusers of the
system are "busted" by someone reporting then rather than by the IRS
determining there is fraud. If a person reports someone for tax
evasion, that person can participate in the monies recovered.

 

--- snip for brevity. ---

It wouldn't work like that at all.

In an outfit like Nikon which has been producing new product and
writing new manuals for donkey's years, where manuals are concerned,
there would be a corporate style manual. It would cover everyting from
content, style of writing, page sizes, font, graphics, binding etc
etc. All departments are likely to have input into the style manual,
particularly the marketing department as this manual will shape the
product documentation which the customer will see.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. I have said that from the beginning:

Sandman <>
<>

"the only reason [Marketing] would ever ask to see it is to see if
it follows the company's graphical guidelines, which they MAY be
in charge of (which isn't a given)."

You can't take that to the bank. Corporate image should, and in the
cases of your average medium to large company, does extend to the
owner's manual.

Corporate branding and graphical guidelines aren't *marketing* though,
even if the marketing department could be in charge of it. I.e. this
paragraph that started this entire owner's manual talk:

PeterN <>
<519cca3d$0$10837$-secrets.com>

"in many organizations even the owners manual has to be passed
through marketing. Showing all of the super features"

The marketing department adding content to the owner's manual to show
off (market) the product for marketing purposes - this doesn't happen.

My description was that there is nothing in my example that requires
the use of a marketing department. If Nikon sees a need to discourage
use of untested accessories with their cameras, the technical writers
can do that for them. There would be no need to channel the entire
manual through a content revision with another department because of
that.

 

I didn't bring it up.[/QUOTE]

My apologies, my bad. Sorry about that

 

Well, when you can't use reason and facts to support your argument,
running away is a better choice than turning to insults, so you'll
always have that

Have a nice life!

 

Exactly. I have said that from the beginning:

Sandman <>
<>[/QUOTE]

In which, as below, you cast considerable doubt on whether or not the
marketing group would have any input to technical manuals (presumably
including content).

That's quibbling. It should be clear to you from the context that I
have never used 'marketing' in the narrow sense you now propose.

Here is one of your denials given with no justification.

The marketing department may or may not add content "to show off
(market) the product for marketing purposes" but they will have the
final say so as to whether or not such contents is to be added and the
form it should take.

That sounds just like a government bureacracy.

This is a corporate marketing decision, not to be left to technical
writers. This decision falls squarely into the responsibility of the
marketing department.

It almost certainly would go through all the major departments for a
final check and approval.

 

In which you cast considerable doubt on whether or not the
marketing group would have any input to technical manuals (presumably
including content).[/QUOTE]

Yes, I am saying that marketing rarely, if ever, contribute with any
content to the owner's manual. This obviously excludes "content" that
is inheret in the company graphical guidelines, which the marketing
department may or may not be in charge of.

What justified claim am I denying? I mean, PeterN said X and I said Y.
Neither of use justified it with anything but words - but for whatever
reason, the lack of justification is only brought up in relation to my
remark.

To be frank, I'm unsure just as to how I *would* justify it. I mean, I
have worked in the business for about 18 years so most of my claims
come from experience, but apart from that, I don't know how to show it
to you? What kind of justification are you looking for? I'll be happy
to do my best to provide it!

But rarely, if ever, does - is my claim. Both yours and mine is
unjustified. Mine differs from yours in no way at all.

This is false. The marketing department doesn't have "final say" on
the content of the owner's manual.

(And for clarity - that explicit claim was not justified either, just
as your explicit claim wasn't).

Ehm, ok. It's normal corporate behavior as well, so they have that in
common, then.

Actually, it's a legal and customer support decision, not a marketing
decision. The reason that text is there is to cut down on customer
support costs and eventual legal costs (when customer can't get third
party accessory X to work, or when third party accessory fries the
device)

This is just illogical - There is nothing in the examples that suggest
it was written by anyone but the technical writers that wrote the
immediately preceding paragraph.

Sorry, but no.

When it comes to the owner's manual, the marketing department is not a
"major" department, and neither is the sales department. Or
accounting, or personell.

 

On 27/05/2013 21:50, Alan Browne wrote:
[]

It's starting to come across like that.

So any manuals for the iPad containing the word "Apple" have these
marketing materials?

 

Not that I see here, other than a reference to iTunes that is:
< http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/ipad_user_guide.pdf >

 

Yet the iPad manual is very far from a bare technical guide. It's got
marketing/design's paw prints all over it.

 

Yet the iPad manual is very far from a bare technical guide. It's got
marketing/design's paw prints all over it.[/QUOTE]

For adherence to graphical guidelines and company image, yes. Not for
marketing purposes (i.e. selling or promoting accessories or the device
it is a manual for).

PeterN <>
<519cca3d$0$10837$-secrets.com>

in many organizations even the owners manual has to be
passed through marketing. Showing all of the super features

 

Yes, I am saying that marketing rarely, if ever, contribute with any
content to the owner's manual. This obviously excludes "content" that
is inheret in the company graphical guidelines, which the marketing
department may or may not be in charge of.[/QUOTE]

'content' and 'input' are not the same. 'graphical guideline' are
something else again.

--- snip ---

Can't be bothered with this endless non productive discussion. :-(

 

'content' and 'input' are not the same. 'graphical guideline' are
something else again.[/QUOTE]

Very good, captain obvious.

Indeed.

 

For adherence to graphical guidelines and company image, yes. Not for
marketing purposes (i.e. selling or promoting accessories or the device
it is a manual for).

PeterN <>
<519cca3d$0$10837$-secrets.com>

in many organizations even the owners manual has to be
passed through marketing. Showing all of the super features[/QUOTE]

Sandman, I'm curious, are you a senior executive in the marketing
department of a major Japanese manufacturer of photo equipment? If not
then how is it that you speak so authoritatively about their internal
processes?

 

Sandman, I'm curious, are you a senior executive in the marketing
department of a major Japanese manufacturer of photo equipment?[/QUOTE]

Thank you for asking! No, I am a marketing consultant and run my own
company. I work mainly with branding, design and corporate image and
deal with marketing departments almost on a daily basis. Most of
customers are Swedish, but some have been international as well. They
differ very little, I might add

And as you (may) have noted, my comments have been general, with the
Nikon manual merely illustrating as an example, not the limits of the
scope of my claims.

Why are you asking me this question, and not PeterN? Did you feel his
explicit and unsupported claim (that incidentally started this) wasn't
as authoritative as my reply?

 

Not, by any stretch of the imagination can he be. He's someone who
has evidently worked with some company or companies with Marketing
departments, but never *in* one of those company's Marketing
Department. He's making assumptions of what they do without the
foggiest idea of what really goes on.

He's like someone who has been in an airplane as a passenger in Coach
and telling us how the pilot flies the airplane.

 

For adherence to graphical guidelines and company image, yes. Not for
marketing purposes (i.e. selling or promoting accessories or the device
it is a manual for).[/QUOTE]

You are fixated on the idea that the marketing function is the same as
the sales function. That's the only reason I can see that you won't
recognise the presence of marketing if it's not directly trying to
sell something.

 

You are fixated on the idea that the marketing function is the same as
the sales function.
Incorrect.

That's the only reason I can see that you won't recognise the
presence of marketing if it's not directly trying to sell
something.[/QUOTE]

How do you reconcile that conclusion with this quote from me as a
response to PeterN's first claim:

Sandman <>
<>

the only reason they would ever ask to see it is to see if
it follows the company's graphical guidelines, which they
MAY be in charge of (which isn't a given).

I can't see how anyone can read that and come away with the conclusion
that I can't see the presence of marketing if it's not directly trying
to sell something. The quote is in direct opposition to that.

In fact, the paragraph you *just replied to* is in direct opposition
of that, where I clearly say that marketing CAN be involved for
reasons where they're not trying to sell something.

You have continuously misrepresented my claims and/or my position on
the borderline of outright lying about it. Are *you* a troll? Should I
ignore you?