Re: anyone else in the same boat?

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

--- bash <bashful7 -at- earthlink -dot- net> wrote:

> Start with what is the most pressing need - in many cases, if you're a lone
> wolf,
> this is the establishment of conventions, standards and all those other
> terrible
> things found in plans and style guides.

I disagree. This is a waste of time. Conventions and standards only have
meaning to a team of tech writers. Other people (like engineers) could care
less about standards. A lone writer should do this in his/her head. 

 
> The main reason THIS lone writer was hired was to make consistent the writing
> at
> our site.
> My managers WANT me to make plans, and I just finished our style guide.
> They'll be
> using this
> as a measure of my future progress.

Companies use "writers" in many different ways. If all you're doing is making
style guides and enforcing standards, you're not a "writer".  This is the job
of an editor or project coordinator. *Writers* write documents based on
information they acquire.  They don't just enforce standards. 

> > Find a way
> > to work inside existing patterns first.  Showing up and demanding everybody
> > start conforming to some arbitrary documentation process is a great way to
> get
> > yourself ignored and shoved in a corner (and possibly fired).
> 
> Many writers are hired to establish the process, and will be "possibly" fired
> if
> they don't.

This is a misuse, then, of the term "writer."  As I said, "writers" don't just
implement processes and enforce standards.  If a place hired me and told me I
would be *writing* and then demanded I do the work of an administrative
assistant, I'd quit long before they could fire me.  

*Writers* (note the emphasis) are hired to *produce documentation*.  The use of
standards, style guides, and tools are incidental to that goal. 

*Editors* or *project coordinators* are hired to enforce standards and
implement style guides.  

This is why the term *technical writer* is so misused these days. Some people
call themselves writers, when in fact they are really just editors. This is not
to diminish the need and value of editors, but writing is NOT the same as
editing.  A good writer must be BOTH capable at producing content AND editing
that content.  An editor merely needs to be able to edit content.  

If all you do is edit content and enforce standards - you are NOT a writer. 

> > 3. DO NOT confuse the idealistic theories of books (like Ms. Hackos' book)
> with
> > the harsh realities of everyday writing.  The world is not a well-ordered
> > place. People resist change and order unless there is a clean path to
> success.
> 
> Which often requires a plan...

No, it requires the skill and ability to take the good ideas from books and
find realistic ways to implement them. Planning merely gives others some sense
of what you are doing. If you don't have the skill to implement things and get
the job done - it doesn't matter how much you plan. 


> > Tech writers are judged by the outside world on their ability to *produce*
> > insightful, useful, and technically accurate documents.
> 
> Which requires planning and consistency.

Again, this is a very small piece of the pie. Tantamount to saying that flying
to the moon requires clean water and hydrogen. Well, yes - but that is only one
chunk of a very large pie.

The overriding issue is one of skill. Can a person accurately and effectively
digest complex ideas to produce documentation. Planning and structure are a
small part of that. The real emphasis lies inside the brain of the writer who
is willing and able to handle complex problem solving.  

Too many writers seem to think that if they organize things and make an
exquisite plan - BOOM - their job is done. This isn't true. One can make art
out dung - but do your really want it in your house?  

Likewise, one can organize meaningless words into meaningless structure using a
meaningless plan and make - you got it - meaningless documents. 

Planning and consistency are not the key to successful writing.


> Anyone else here glad they don't work for Andrew?

I am sure a lot of writers could not stand the environment at my firm. I only
hire a few writers a year and when I do, I pick the best of the best. We pay
well and the expectation is very high.  Bureaucrats and people who want to
build little empires don't survive at my firm. But capable, problem-solving
writers who want to learn cool new technologies and do a wide variety of
different work fair very well. At my firm, writers have A LOT of authority over
their own work - but that comes with accountability. I don't care how they get
the work done, as long as it makes the client happy.  If the client wants 9000
pages of planning and is willing to pay for it, then we snap our heels and do
it.  But most our clients don't want that. They just want good docs from
technical savvy writers.

This is why a lot of technology companies hire us to do really complex
technical documents. We don't care about tools, methodologies, or processes and
we can work inside any environment. 

Okay, enough sales. Its Christmas, lets all be friends. 

Group hug.  

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.