TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> Experience has made me a firm believer in the old saying: "Never sweat the
> details." Therefore, it is very difficult for me to envision a situation
> where analysis and planning were properly done, but the writer just totally
> botched the project with poor grammar.
>
> Lets say that someone hires a world-renowned designer to build his/her dream
> home. Would that person then botch the whole effort up by using cans of
> spray paint to paint the walls? Possible, but not likely.
Tony, once again you are equating poor writing skills with poor grammar
skills. They are not the same thing -- good writing encompasses good grammar, but it
goes beyond that. It is easy (a little too easy) to write a document which
is grammatically flawless but technically useless. Your use of the painting
analogy indicates that your definition of "writing" is different from mine, and
probably from that of many others on this list. Selecting the type of paint (can vs.
spray) is a teeny tiny part of painting, just as using proper grammar is a teeny
tiny part of writing.
BTW, I had a neighbor once who spray-painted the entire exterior of her
house. Very interesting.
