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.
Re: Poor user analysis and o-rings was RE: The Quick and the Bad
Subject:Re: Poor user analysis and o-rings was RE: The Quick and the Bad From:"Bonnie Granat" <bgranat -at- worldnet -dot- att -dot- net> To:<SusanH -at- cardsetc -dot- com>, "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:48:40 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: SusanH -at- cardsetc -dot- com <SusanH -at- cardsetc -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thursday, April 27, 2000 6:22 PM
Subject: Poor user analysis and o-rings was RE: The Quick and the Bad
>
>I read recently that the issue of the shuttle disaster was less a question
>of what caused the problem physically, and more the fact that the engineers
>who wrote the report on the problem did not stop to think what they wanted
>the reader to do with the information. As a result, the readers never saw
>the implications of what was being reported.
>
>Perhaps reporting without pointing out the implications is another word for
>'coverup' but at least it emphasises key writing responsibilities:
>1. we have got to focus on how the information we develop will be used
>2. our product has to enable the reader to process the information for that
>use
>
>Susan Harkus
>
It was also the case with the Three Mile Island nuclear power accident.
