Re: The Problem with STC

["Avon Murphy" <avonmu -at- home -dot- com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Plato <intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Cc: <mike -dot- west -at- oz -dot- quest -dot- com>
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 2:02 AM
Subject: Re: The Problem with STC


Andrew Plato writes:

> 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.

Andrew has condensed hundreds of postings into a graspable set of axioms
that, for the most part, make sense.  I think we'd all agree that "Good
comm, good content = Good doc." No examples needed here.

As a technical editor, I've encountered lots of bad content. Andrew is
totally on-target in affirming that bad content always means bad
documentation. Bad content sneaks in--or leaps in--as steps that can
endanger the user, illegal requirements, illogical code syntax, misplaced
emphasis, mislabeled components, neglect of new information, etc. This
content makes the document at best worthless. What SMEs and experienced tech
editors do is recognize this content *before* the document is published.

And as a recruiter of tech writers in computer technologies, I'm heartbroken
by many applicants who can compose coherent passages and have practiced with
Adobe products, PowerPoint, Dreamweaver, and all the other tools. But when
our interview turns to the technology itself, all they seem to know about
programming, for example, is "classes" and "object orientation." Given their
current lack of knowledge, their documents will likely be suspect and will
require lots of my editing time.

"Bad comm, good content = Marginal doc" is the most interesting case. I've
seen hundreds of cases where the ineptness of the writing so destroyed the
good content that, in essence, the good content became bad content, creating
a bad doc. In none of these cases could I say we had marginal docs. The "bad
comm" might be weak punctuation, sentence structure, or word choice, but
frequently it's unintentional misemphasis, lack of the right detail for the
intended audience, no sense of audience at all, whole passages that say the
opposite of what the author hopes to communicate (lots of that!), no
connections made between blocks of undigested detail, etc.

The good news about "Bad comm, good content" is that an editor can work with
the writer to rescue something of value. The bad news is that an editor has
to come to the rescue. So maybe we should change Andrew's term "Marginal" to
"Editable" or "Potentially good." The possibility here depends on the
resources of the organization.

To sum up: Thank you, Andrew, for raising a basic but always intriguing
question.

Avon Murphy



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.