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.
Dan Roberts responding to my observation that a productivity metric should
include "a measure of the _required quality_ for each concept", observes:
<<The problem is that 'quality' is another one of those words for which each
person has an individual definition.>>
Yes, and I rather foolishly didn't qualify <g> that word. In my example,
"exiting Word" doesn't require much quality because, with the possible
exception of a reminder to save your file (which Word ask you to do anyway),
it really doesn't matter whether you do it right or not... at least not in
comparison with my second example, "performing CPR". Here, quality is
crucial: you can kill someone if you don't do it right, or at best fail to
save their life. So you'll still have to define quality in such a manner
that you can measure it (see my original quote, excerpted above) and thereby
confirm that you've achieved it, but my main point was that some things are
much more important than others, and thus required more quality, however you
define that term.
<<Anyway, I'm gettong to a good part in this Dracula movie I'm watching, so
I'll shut up now.>>
"Technical writing... requires understanding the audience, understanding
what activities the user wants to accomplish, and translating the often
idiosyncratic and unplanned design into something that appears to make
sense."--Donald Norman, The Invisible Computer
