reset buton just under the glove box ????
#41
02-04-2013, 04:43 AM
Veteran Member
Good for you. I wish there were more like you. The world is over populated with people that do an absolutely horrible job of writing documentation. I typically find it to be big on structural form because that's been the asy part ever since the early 1990s due to the software available to easily make a very orderly and structured presentation. But all too often that's all you get is a structure with a very low quotient of useful content. It's usually helpful to me to have a thorough overview of how something operates and all too often all we get is the bullet points for specific tasks that can raise more questions than they answer. I've always liked to know the how and why about a subject.
As to reading the entire manual, I used to do that with great pleasure. I think the last car, other than some vintage ones, that I did do that with was my 90 Infiniti Q45. That car came with a pint size full service maul that was stored in a compartment in the rear package shelf. There was so much gold in that thing and that was a very new sort of car at the time. My eyes were a lot better too!
The S-type's manual isn't too bad though I can't say I have enough patience for the nav system. We don't use it all that often anyway. In general it's not an overly complex car to operate and that is something I really appreciate.
When I attended an introduction event for the newer Jags I remember one of the people there had just bought a new XJ and he mentioned how much technical information needed to be mastered to operate the car. It's at an entirely different level than our S-types.
Maybe a night school course ... LOL
As to the button, perhaps an in situ documentation flag is in order for the next poor bloke who wonders?
"Ah go ahead and push it! You know you want too ... "
As to reading the entire manual, I used to do that with great pleasure. I think the last car, other than some vintage ones, that I did do that with was my 90 Infiniti Q45. That car came with a pint size full service maul that was stored in a compartment in the rear package shelf. There was so much gold in that thing and that was a very new sort of car at the time. My eyes were a lot better too!
The S-type's manual isn't too bad though I can't say I have enough patience for the nav system. We don't use it all that often anyway. In general it's not an overly complex car to operate and that is something I really appreciate.
When I attended an introduction event for the newer Jags I remember one of the people there had just bought a new XJ and he mentioned how much technical information needed to be mastered to operate the car. It's at an entirely different level than our S-types.
Maybe a night school course ... LOL
As to the button, perhaps an in situ documentation flag is in order for the next poor bloke who wonders?
"Ah go ahead and push it! You know you want too ... "
What a timely topic. I am in the middle of getting a 1600-page doc set out the door and on the web.
While RTFM works for my books, it might not for other authors. You would hope that the person writing the book understands the content documented, but this is not always the case.
In my tech pubs department, we have writers with English degrees, Technical Writing degrees, no degrees, and in my case, Engineering degrees. As such, you will find the quality of the documentation varies: grammatically correct, lacking substance, passive voice, overly detailed, repetitious, skewed, award-winning, actually useful, inconsistent, unintuitive, and outdated.
Some of the writers don't understand the topic and merely parrot the engineer's words. Others go far enough to fit the proper style to those words. Sadly, only one other writer and myself will take the initiative and actually "get our hands dirty".
What this means is that the book we mistakenly treat as "the word of god" is not. Its been censored, edited, and abridged to be "you need to know only this".
And that is frustrating for me in particular. I want to provide as much useful information to the reader as possible, because I want to help them. Many times I have been told to remove contents because "this is an implementation aspect and the reader does not need to know this". Of course, if the reader knew about the functionality, they would have a better understanding of the feature.
My forte is creating troubleshooting paradigms, that is, models of ways to identify and solve problems. The subject matter experts dislike my procedures that are a quick way to assess the state of a fault condition, or other such short-cuts. They would prefer that I document a more standard, methodical (and stupidly time consuming for the reader) approach. Can you tell they are engineers?
I am not ignorant. I know what is beneficial to the reader because I perform every procedure I document. I write from first-hand experience. Very often what the engineers tell me is wrong, so my books get what is real, not theoretical.
Ok, so I have gone off on a tangent. Yes, please do read the manual. Many people have spent long nights and lost weekends making sure that the content within is of quality and use. But in the same breath, do not take the words as gospel. The book is like any other specific tool in your kit, great for turning Philips head screws, but crap at stripping wire.
While RTFM works for my books, it might not for other authors. You would hope that the person writing the book understands the content documented, but this is not always the case.
In my tech pubs department, we have writers with English degrees, Technical Writing degrees, no degrees, and in my case, Engineering degrees. As such, you will find the quality of the documentation varies: grammatically correct, lacking substance, passive voice, overly detailed, repetitious, skewed, award-winning, actually useful, inconsistent, unintuitive, and outdated.
Some of the writers don't understand the topic and merely parrot the engineer's words. Others go far enough to fit the proper style to those words. Sadly, only one other writer and myself will take the initiative and actually "get our hands dirty".
What this means is that the book we mistakenly treat as "the word of god" is not. Its been censored, edited, and abridged to be "you need to know only this".
And that is frustrating for me in particular. I want to provide as much useful information to the reader as possible, because I want to help them. Many times I have been told to remove contents because "this is an implementation aspect and the reader does not need to know this". Of course, if the reader knew about the functionality, they would have a better understanding of the feature.
My forte is creating troubleshooting paradigms, that is, models of ways to identify and solve problems. The subject matter experts dislike my procedures that are a quick way to assess the state of a fault condition, or other such short-cuts. They would prefer that I document a more standard, methodical (and stupidly time consuming for the reader) approach. Can you tell they are engineers?
I am not ignorant. I know what is beneficial to the reader because I perform every procedure I document. I write from first-hand experience. Very often what the engineers tell me is wrong, so my books get what is real, not theoretical.
Ok, so I have gone off on a tangent. Yes, please do read the manual. Many people have spent long nights and lost weekends making sure that the content within is of quality and use. But in the same breath, do not take the words as gospel. The book is like any other specific tool in your kit, great for turning Philips head screws, but crap at stripping wire.
#42
02-04-2013, 05:27 AM
I don,t think its the ejector seat because I have no sun roof straight out of James bond no more back seat drivers great also lost the wife the other day I pressed the wrong button what a same.
The following users liked this post:
Robinb (02-04-2013)
#43
02-04-2013, 06:11 AM
I haven't read this thread but I've printed it off to carry around in the Glove Box.
Can someone tell me where to find the Glove Box?
Graham
Can someone tell me where to find the Glove Box?
Graham
#45
02-04-2013, 07:18 AM
Veteran Member
Its in the manual that should be located in the glove box.
RTFM
sheesh
RTFM
sheesh
#47
02-04-2013, 08:18 AM
The following users liked this post:
bfsgross (02-04-2013)
#49
02-04-2013, 09:39 AM
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Perth Ontario Canada
Posts: 11,058
Received 2,263 Likes
on
1,845 Posts
#50
02-04-2013, 09:39 AM
Graham
#51
02-04-2013, 09:36 PM
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Perth Ontario Canada
Posts: 11,058
Received 2,263 Likes
on
1,845 Posts
Aw c'mon. NOBODY's going to go actually look underneath the glove box to see the inertia switch?
#53
02-05-2013, 06:14 AM
Veteran Member
Gave my wife the 'inertia switch" this morning, and she didn't take it lightly (spoken like Austin Powers).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FS[NorthWest]: 2004 X-type 3.0 24,500miles! $8500
millertic
PRIVATE For Sale / Trade or Buy Classifieds
0
09-30-2015 08:11 PM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)