Re: The Problem with STC

[Andrew Plato <intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

"Michael West" <mike -dot- west -at- oz -dot- quest -dot- com> wrote in message news:81692 -at- techwr-l -dot-  -dot-  -dot- 

> Mr Plato's views and mine are almost diametrically 
> opposed. 

Well, at least you're in a different hemisphere. 

> He believes that detailed technical
> knowledge is an "infinitely" more important element 
> in technical communications than core communications 
> skills. No-one can question his right to such an 
> eccentric opinion, but when someone takes a 
> position so radically opposed to the accepted 
> wisdom and to mountains of empirical evidence 
> to the contrary, he has, as a certain Cuban 
> bandleader used to say, a lotta splainin to do.

Okay. I exaggerate. I think content knowledge is moderately more important than
communication knowledge.  I think this way because one is dependent on the
other.  

Good comm, bad content = Bad doc
Good comm, good content = Good doc
Bad comm, good content = Marginal doc
Bad comm, bad doc = Bad doc

One can be a fair to poor communicator armed with good content and still
communicate effectively.  

The US Constitution might not be the clearest document after 214 years - but
the content of that document has sustained the world's greatest republic (wave
American flag, intro Star Spangled Banner).  At the end of the day, people look
to the content not the delivery.

If I had to quantify it, I would say communication skill should comprise about
35% and content skill should comprise 65% of a writer's emphasis.  I think that
number shifts from project to project, role to role, and industry to industry.

But I would argue it never tips beyond 50-50. 

> Expert communicators (technical or otherwise) 
> know how to develop an effective strategy for
> communicating clearly and successfully on just
> about any topic. Conversely, poor communicators
> can fail to communicate on any topic, no matter
> how much they think they know about it.

Its not that black and white. But yes, good communicators should be able to
communicate effectively on any topic. But they have to know that topic first. 

> If Mr Plato's views were correct, there would be
> no need for technical communications at all as
> a professional practice. Vendors of technical
> products could simply let their engineers educate
> their users.

You're taking my words to extremes. Poor communicators are in all professions -
even tech writing. 

> Mr Plato suggests that "English or language classes
> in college and high school" are adequate preparation 
> for the "communications" side of technical 
> communications, and that all one needs after that is 
> in-depth technical knowledge of some small, 
> specialized focal area in order to qualify as a 
> developer of high-quality end-user assistance 

That is not what I said, Michael. I said everybody has some degree of
communication skill. This was in the context of comparison to programming
skills.  

> Mr Plato has made his views on technical 
> communications quite clear. What I can't
> figure out is why, given his low opinion of
> the field, he is involved with it at all.

I am a technical communicator because (in order):

1) I like geeky stuff (particularly networking).
2) I like to write.
3) I am a crappy programmer.

Guess what? I think that's the way ALL tech writers should be. But that's not
the way it is. I feel a lot of writers only want to write. So they focus on
writing skills at the complete expense of technical skills. That makes them bad
*technical* writers. Their writing may be good, but they don't understand what
they are writing about and hence, cannot produce useful docs. 

Last week I was at a client site talking to a CIO (Chief Information Officer)
and their Director of Engineering. The topic of technical writers came up (I
was there doing network security work). I did my typical little song and dance
about how we were the "technical technical writers".  Laughs all around. 

The CIO said something to me that I think ALL tech writers should take to
heart: "It just makes no sense that the writers we have don't even take the
time to learn about this stuff." The "stuff" he was referring to was the
software product they produce.  Both the engineer and the CIO were dumbfounded
that there were TECHNICAL writers who had virtually no technical skills.  The
Director of Engineering joked, "its like a lawyer who hates the law!"

That is where my opinion lies. In line with those two people:. Dumbfounded that
there are people who consider themselves TECHNICAL communicators, when they
don't understand the technical topics they are supposed to communicate. 

Yes, understanding how to communicate effectively is very important.  A good
writer has solid skills on BOTH sides of the fence.  Content AND communication.
I personally feel the content side is a bit more important. I am 100% certain
that lacking on EITHER side is a lacking as a whole. 

I don't have a low opinion of tech writing. I am merely concerned that my
profession is killing itself from its inability to focus on what is truly
important: content. 

Andrew Plato 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Develop HTML-based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver! (STC Discount.)
**NEW DATE/LOCATION!** January 16-17, 2001, New York, NY.
http://www.weisner.com/training/dreamweaver_help.htm or 800-646-9989.

Take XML and Tech Writing courses online!  Our instructor-led courses
(4-6 hrs/wk) give you "hands on" experience at your convenience. STC members
get 20% off!  http://www.online-learning.com/index.html.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.