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.
Argument 1 focuses on the writer. Technical documentation is about the
user, not the writer.
Argument 2 focuses on the user. I repeat, technical documentation is about
the user, not the writer.
I heartily agree with Roy, "creativity is . . . involved in solving the
problems
of explaining complex topics clearly, completely and succinctly. . .."
J-M
-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-techwr-l-73029 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
[mailto:bounce-techwr-l-73029 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com] On Behalf Of Elizabeth
Estep
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 2:55 PM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: Individual vs. Departmental Writer's Voice
There's an interesting subject that's just come up in my department--whether
it's appropriate for a departmental editor to attempt to enforce a
"departmental voice" in edits.
Situation:
A department of 6 writers and 1 editor. Each writer creates manuals and help
files for individual modules of a primarily accounting application (each
module has one writer, each writer has many modules). In many cases, but not
all, the modules are aimed at the same basic audience (accounting clerks and
accountants). A few modules are aimed at other audiences such as executives
or the sales force.
The question:
Assuming that two modules are writing to the same general audience
(accounting clerks and accountants), is it appropriate for a departmental
editor to make edits to keep two separate manuals (say one for an Accounts
Receivable module and one for an Accounts Payable module) consistent in tone
and type of language?
We've two writers making the following arguments:
as if they were written by the same person.
One writer (and I'm not saying who) supports her arguments by pointing to an
"industry standard practice" but without supporting evidence beyond her own
experience. I'm figuring if anyone can define "industry standard" it's going
to be this email list, so I'd love to hear what any of you might have to say
on this issue. Thanks for your time.
*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com
Sponsored by Cub Lea, specialist in low-cost outsourced development
and documentation. Overload and time-sensitive jobs at exceptional
rates. Unique free gifts for all visitors to http://www.cublea.com
---
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.
