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.
Subject:Re: Pseudowriters From:bgranat -at- att -dot- net To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:26:39 +0000
> Bonnie, most of your post is just a rant on the "pseudowriter." I am not going
> to discuss that because it is mostly your personal take on bad writers.
>
I'm talking about professionalism, which contains ideas that are not my "personal take" on bad writers.
> I will discuss your basic message. Which as far as I can discern was: real
> writers follow standards, plans, and conventions and bad writers do not.
> Hence, the only "proper" documents are those that communicate a message to the
> audience, were written under a plan, and were labored over by editors enforcing
> conventions.
I am saying that avoiding the standard tools of the profession causes poor quality.
All the creativity in the world in your writing isn't going to make your docs more than gibberish if you haven't got a clue about when to say what.
>
> I disagree partially. I think real writers have mastery over content AND
> communication skills. I think standards, plans, and conventions are secondary.
> The cold, real fact is: you cannot write an intelligent document if you do not
> understand the topic.
>
Nobody is advocating not understanding the topic. The assumption among professionals is that the technical writer understands the topic.
> Plans and conventions are 100% meaningless, irrelevant, and wasted if they are
> applied to inaccurate information.
>
No s**t, Sherlock. Nobody advocates applying good professional guidelines to inaccurate information.
> Good docs do convey a message. But they also convey a tone of "I have command
> over this topic."
Only to the pseudowriter, who as I pointed out before, can think only of himself. You prove my point.
>Standards and conventions are not a replacement nor do they
> supercede accurate and authoritative content.
>
Nobody said they were a replacement for content or that they replaced content.
I'm tired of your continual misrepresentation of what I have written and your refusal to understand what I cannot present more clearly without incuring banishment by Eric, so I'm finished with this conversation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.
