PowerXEditor Eases Online Collaborative Authoring and Workflow
By Rahel Bailie, special to The Content Wrangler
As the market develops for XML tools that work for a growing number of user types in a variety of industries, we are starting to see creative products come on the market. One need that is becoming more common is for the average business author – that is, someone who is not a technical writer and hasn’t studied the craft of writing – to create documents that validate to an XML DTD.
The difference between the needs of the typical business user differs vastly from those in the technical production environment. Technical writers and developers want to be exposed to the XML. The ability to see what’s happening behind the curtain, so to speak, allows authors to control the tagging and ensure that whatever they create works for their readers as well as creates valid XML. The complexity of the content, when taking into account things like conditional text, variables, and multi-channel publishing outputs, makes the exposure to the XML tags and elements critical.
In the business world, exposure to the XML is not necessarily a welcome strategy. Authors who may be subject matters experts in law, medicine, science, or business may not even know what XML stands, let alone want to learn how to use it. Their needs are to create content that conforms to a documentation standard, such as the APA guidelines. They want to concentrate on the content, not on the form. Yet, the organization needs valid XML documentation in order to publish, whether that means submitting the content to academic journals, or stream the content into their own publication software.
Aptara Inc. has developed PowerXEditor, a full XML editor complete with workflow, to address exactly this conundrum. The company, based in Falls Church, Virginia, created an XML editor that has balanced the needs of the non-technical author with the need to have valid XML output for the publishing needs of their organization. Their editor protects the users from the complicated side of XML, thus preventing distractions from the authoring process, while ensuring that the content they create can be validated against the organization’s DTD.
PowerXEditor is part of the PowerSuite of tools, which provides an online authoring environment that allows non-technical authors to create their material online and submit it directly into the publishing process. The built-in workflow sends completed work to an editor for review and comment, and lets the editor either return an article to the author for further polishing, or to approve it and automatically add the article to a bank of approved content.
XML advocates will undoubtedly ask how valid XML can be created, when the author isn’t exposed to the underlying rules of the DTD. This is handled in PowerXEditor by relaxing the rules for the writers. During the writing process, authors can work much like they do in a word processor. The key differences involve protecting the XML structure by disallowing functions such as adding a text box, or by limiting the copy-and-paste function to plain text. However, most of the menu bar items function much the same as an online text editor.
For example, during the creative process, a writer might create a list with only one bullet item, then return to the article later to add more bullet points. Or perhaps the writer adds a citation that doesn’t conform to the APA standard notation. The editing tool allows the writer to work, uninterrupted by error messages, until the writer decides the article is complete. For authors, completion is when they send their content in to the editors who will review and approve their work, or re-route the work back to the writers for further polishing.
After the content has been approved, and as the content is published, the XML is then validated. Any references are resolved, citations made to conform to the publication standard, figures properly labeled, and other anomalies fixed, in an automated process, by the software. The automated validation process ensures that the content conforms to the organization’s DTD.
According to Aptara, about 95% or more of the validation decisions involved with relaxing the XML for authors are discovered and repaired by the parser and heuristics within the application. Aptara technicians intervene in the remaining cases where a rule cannot be resolved by the application, as part of the customer support services offered as part of the standard support package.
Using role-based permissions, PowerXEditor controls the writing environment, from the login and dashboard, right through the process. The dashboards differ by role, giving writers, reviewers, and administrators separate sets of controls designed for them.
The PowerXEditor authoring tool is meant for use in publishing environments where writing is more than an occasional activity. For an organization to invest in software that unifies the tasks of authoring with workflow that takes that content through its review/revision and approval stages, the writing is likely high-value content that is published to strict standards, and involves authors who are subject matter experts (SME), and a publishing process that includes roles such as editors, art directors, and so on.
The product contains the type of workflow capabilities that one would expect in a product with this robustness. The workflow is configured by Aptara, with certain functions remaining configurable by the administrator. This builds in certain workflow flexibility, such as skipping a step or re-routing an article to someone not usually in the sign-off loop. The Administrator has access to a number of options usually associated with a content management system (CMS); when integrated with a CMS, these settings are controlled directly by the CMS.
The .NET framework, combined with the power of AJAX and Java, means that the browser-based application is cross-platform and cross-browser compatible. There is no software to download or install, and the controls are simple enough for any author to quickly learn. The content remains format-neutral – in other words, in XML – so there are none of the barriers posed by proprietary systems. PowerXEditor can integrate with a content management system or other workflow system through its application programming interface. Though a Microsoft SQL database controls content and workflow, the XML editor can be integrated with other systems.
The product is meant for multiple publishing channels, with a strong supports built in for publishers of print. In addition to standard features such as word count, PowerXEditor feeds high-end composition from InDesign and Quark to LaTeX. Its mini-castoff calculator provides a much more accurate idea of page layout restrictions early on, supporting editorial staff in their decisions about how to judge the amount of content in relation to the available number of pages.
For more information about PowerXEditor or the entire Aptara PowerSuite, contact one of the Aptara offices, at http://www.aptaracorp.com, or contact them at info@aptaracorp.com.
About Rahel Bailie
Rahel Bailie helps content-driven companies create and better manage their communication strategies. Her firm, Intentional Design, serves clients in and around North America and Europe. Rahel is a popular presenter at content industry conferences, is a frequent contributor to trade and industry publications, and leads several online discussion groups, including Content Convergence. Contact Rahel via email or via telephone at +1 604-837-0034.
Similar Posts:
- Cladonia Exchanger XML Editor: Not For DITA
- An XML Architecture for Technical Documentation: DITA
- Results of The Content Wrangler Content Creation and Publishing Workflow Survey
This sounds like nothing but a long-winded marketing document to me.
What makes this XML editor any better or worse than other editors that shield users from seeing markup? Or that have workflow capabilities?
And because it’s built on .NET and uses javascript and Java in its publishing interface doesn’t make it cross browser compatible.
Certainly the product has its weaknesses. They all do. No mention of those here.
Why was this even written? You could have simply put a link to the vendor’s website and saved a lot of time.
This article was written to introduce our readers to a tool that few people in our space have heard of.
If you are looking for detailed information about XML authoring tools, you might consider purchasing the XML Authoring and Content Component Management report for CMS Watch. This vendor-neutral report, created by the folks at The Rockley Group, includes detailed reviews of many products in this space.
As far as product weaknesses, you are right. They all have them. That’s why dedicated teams of professional reviewers and consultants are needed to produce meaningful product reviews. As I mentioned earlier, this is just a brief introduction to a tool that has lots of promise for folks outside the XML authoring arena.
Thanks for your valuable feedback.
Scott Abel
The Content Wrangler
That’s the point. This isn’t a review. It’s a sales pitch. And it seems to me that the author has never used this product in context other than having been through a vendor demo, perhaps.
In fact, it makes me wonder about her authority. I wonder if Rahel Bailie has enough hard knowledge of XML to know whether this tool writes unadulterated XML code or not. Maybe it does, but we’ve got no indication that that’s the case here. The implications of this are rather large, so it would be good to know.
What I’d like to hear about, if you’re going to offer an authentic review, is how this product plays with others in a real environment. Let’s hear from the operations leads on what PowerXEditor was like to configure and integrate, and what sort of an experience they had in actually publishing material with it. Maybe they could tell us if the XML was “format-neutral”, whatever that means.
It’s all a bit much and adds little value.
Jeff:
Again, let me quote from my earlier comment: “This article was written to introduce our readers to a tool that few people in our space have heard of.” For clarity, let me make it perfectly clear….this is not a product review nor was it labeled as one. It is a brief overview, nothing more, nothing less. I asked Rahel to write an overview, not a detailed analysis of the tool. Her experience is not in question among anyone in our industry. She’s got street cred most content professionals could only dream of.
On the other hand, as your email address implies you fancy yourself an XML expert, so you should have no problem getting a review copy and banging on it until you are content that you’ve discovered everything you need to know. I’d be happy to connect you with the product vendor and recommend they consider providing you with access to the tool so you could better understand its capabilities. And, if you’d like to share what you learn with others here, we’d very much like that.
Enough said.
I’d let her demonstrate her own “street cred” if I were you. What we’ve seen here is nothing more than mere parroting. Hardly the makings of a seasoned veteran.
Enough said.
And just to point out, while you say that this isn’t a product review, you said in your own comment that “dedicated teams of professional reviewers and consultants are needed to produce meaningful product reviews”.
Get your story straight.
Hello Jeff, Scott, Rachel:
Jeff, I’m not a neutral party here, I’m the product manager for PowerXEditor. You do raise some points that should be addressed.
You are correct that being .NET based, there may be some browser issues. We presently certify Firefox 2 and 3 on Windows, MacOS, Linux, and Solaris as compatible with the application. IE 5.5 and higher is supported, and most of the gecko-based browsers do work. We do not yet support Safari, although that is on our roadmap. Google Chrome can’t be used yet due to it’s lack of fine control over pop-up windows. Nor do we support Opera or Konqueror.
PowerXEditor uses JavaScript, but not Java.
PowerXEditor is being used by several major publishers, including a major encyclopedia publisher. If you look at chapter 4 of Management Information Systems, 8th Edition, by James A. O’Brien and George M. Marakas (McGraw-Hill ISBN 007351154), you will see that they state that PowerXEditor was used to revise and edit the entire book. A case study appears on pages 155 and 156. Other users include scholarly societies. Lippincott’s Applied Therapeutics was produced using an earlier edition of the tool.
Several other points you raise also deserve answers, particularly the one about configuration. PowerXEditor is usually (but not always) a hosted service. Aptara’s staff typically does the configuration, and the system is then presented as a test site or playground prior to beginning a project. The newest version allows some roles to do routine configurations regarding the workflow and metadata.
XML is produced using the client’s desired DTD or DTDs. Our users have generally had a custom DTD which we have to follow, or use NLM-2, DocBook, or TEI P3 or P4 or TEI Lite.
I’m somewhat amused at your suggestion that this is a vendor marketing piece. We did hope to provide a reasonably neutral article written by Aptara staff. Scott saw something useful, but would not accept even something written as one might for a placement piece. Instead, he asked Rahel to write an independent story. I DID give Rahel a brief demo, then we made a PowerXEdtior instance available to her for as long as she required it – about a month. During this time, Rahel had access to our helpdesk and to me. I think she called me once, when a popup blocker interfered with some testing. I’m not sure, but I do not think she contacted helpdesk.
Please feel free to email me if you have any other questions.
Jeff:
I hear your gripe and respectfully ask you to drop it already. We get it! You didn’t like the article.
David, thanks for being honest about this, although it wasn’t hard to see what was going on. Messy business.
Consider it dropped (in more ways than one).
Supporting XML authoring by non-technical content contributors is one of several “Holy Grails” in the XML space. Rahel clearly and succinctly summarizes the problem, and provides a nice overview of a new product that may fill an important niche. One would never assess the appropriateness of any software based on a single review, but I for one am grateful that Rahel (and Scott) have brought this product to our attention.
You’re a very supportive friend, Alan. I’m sure you know these people well. Looking at your website, you probably know XML, too. So maybe you’re in a place to comment.
Please, don’t get me wrong, I’m always happy to discover new tools and new approaches as well. My job demands it. And I’ve worked with many.
But what you’ve said, Alan, doesn’t take away from the fact that this article was written by someone who likely couldn’t identify an XML element if she sat on one. So how is she supposed assure us that the solution she talks about here is, technically speaking, a safe bet. Too many unanswered questions in this not-so-brief glowing overview.
It’s already been admitted that this is regurgitated, spoon-fed stuff from the vendor.
What I expect when I read articles like this is some useful deconstruction of the tool, not an article that was published as a favor to the vendor. I know this kind of arrangement is pretty darned common in the media, but if The Content Wrangler is striving to be a reliable source for the industry, then it shouldn’t put forth stuff like this without making a deal with tool makers that says it can write a thorough unbiased review.
It just amounts to free advertising otherwise. It isn’t that isn’t that helpful except perhaps to the vendor and the author (provided the article doesn’t mess it up for both of them).
And not so helpful free advertising in this case since the product manager had to swoop in and save face because she got some simple facts wrong. It’s obvious the author doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
Maybe closing the comments on this article would be a good idea.
Jeff:
This is no place for insults. If you want to engage in an insult battle, let me know. I’ve got several choice words for you.
For now, comments are still open on this, but if you continue to beat this dead horse, I’ll remove your ability to post.
Jeff:
I think I made it clear that Scott would NOT accept a vendor article. He had an independent article written. This was NOT based on my writing. Rahel did use a screen shot or two, but none of this language is mine. Rahel did an extensive, independent evaluation of PowerXEditor.
I have no problem discussing technical issues and the pros and cons of using as system like PowerXEditor if you wish to continue the disussion with me. But I think you do Rahel a great disservice.
While I clearly understand the questions you raise, I don’t understand where you are coming from on this. I disclosed my involvement and position in this before I gave any response. Do you have a dog in this race? Can’t tell from your community profile. I really don’t want to get involved in or fan flames, so if you want to continue this discussion with me, please try email.
My apologies. No dog in the race. Just interested in people getting unbiased authentic material. Too much to ask for.
Nice page you redirected me to, Mr. Wrangler. If you undo it, I won’t tell anyone what it is.
Jeff:
I have no problem if you tell anyone anything about me. In fact, just make shit up. I don’t care. Why? Because each and every moment you waste here makes me more popular and therefore earns me more money. Alas, thanks to people with too much time on their hands, I have a career (and a new house in Palm Springs).
For those of you interested in knowing where I am redirecting Jeff as he continues to drone on and on about his personal opinion of Rahel’s article: http://www.fuckyou.com
[I bet some of you regular readers could have guessed that!]
Sometimes I am amazed I get paid to do this stuff. LOL
Scott
Classy.
To the dozens and dozens of you who are following this thread and emailing me offline, here’s some more humor to make Pepsi squirt out of your nose (warning: don’t drink while reading this).
Jeff is more determined than a Nigerian spammer to have the last word here. So determined, in fact, that he’s changed his email AND IP addresses THREE times (so far) to circumvent our user banning feature. He just can’t stop himself. If only Jeff’s boss knew how much time he spent fucking around on the internet commenting on blogs.
Of course, he could prove me wrong by: 1) taking his OCD medication on a regular basis, and 2) not responding here ever again. But, I doubt that will happen. People like Jeff crave attention. And, I’m happy to give him a little in exchange for some Google juice.
Do me a big favor Jeff, write all kinds of nasty stuff about me in as many places as possible. Hell, send me a copy and I’ll Tweet, reTweet, and RSS it around the globe. And, don’t forget to use an XML editor to create those nasty blurbs. We want them to be semantically-rich and easily reusable. Google loves that. And, it facilitates content repurposing!
Don’t forget to keep changing those email and IP addresses. My offshore admin assistant is bored today and is excited to have a task that brings a smile to his face.