RE: You Don't Need to Know How

["SM Rush" <sellar -at- apptechsys -dot- com>]

Since you address only the last little light-hearted BTW of my entire post,
I guess I can assume you agree with everything else. Goody.

you say:  > Sorry, but we're still in the "it depends" category.

Well, no actually, it doesn't depend.  I used the word "useful"
deliberately.  Not "necessary", "useful".  It will always be useful for the
tech writer to know how underlying technology works. It will not always be
necessary. I used phrases with relative meanings for a reason--because
what's useful and what consitutes a useful familiarity differs depending on
circumstances. That's the point.

No offense, but I don't really want to search the archives for people who
say technical knowledge is detrimental to their job.  Not just
"unnecessary", but actually detrimental. They are there.  I've read them.
And they weren't ambiguous or open to interpretation, either.

What I (and many others) have *never* said, is that there is some arbitrary
level of technical knowledge that all tech writers must have to do their
jobs.  This makes no sense and is raised only by those who say we shouldn't
do it.  No one's saying we can or should. So it's a non-issue.

What most of us are saying is that having or acquiring some technical
background will enhance a tech writer's ability to do their job. What some
of us are saying is that there is a certain minimum level of technical
knowledge required depending on the situation.

People espousing this position often use examples with very complex
technology. People supporting the opposite position often use extremely
simplistic examples.  As a result their contributions are useless because
they're talking about completely different situations. In my post I used
fairly simple examples to try to bridge this gap.  Also, instead of simply
reiterating the above statement, I also provided some concrete reasons why I
believe the statement is true.

I like your statement as follows:

> at some point you've learned enough to
> document what you have
> to document, for the audience that you're trying to reach, with
> the budget and
> deadline you have to meet.

I didn't understand this:

> Seeing as nailing down both the "what's being documented" and the
> "who's the
> audience" for all of Techwr-L are each about as easy as nailing
> fresh pudding to
> a wall, it's absolutely pointless to try and come to some
> conclusion involving
> both variables (let's not even consider the folly when all the
> myriad other
> variables are added).

Nobody's talking about arbitrary standards. It's a non-issue.

BTW: analogies are not the problem.  Stretching analogies so far they break,
in order to prove they don't work, is the problem.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** 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

Learn about tools and technologies for user assistance developers at
The Help Technology Conference, August 21-24 in Boston, MA
Details and online registration at http://www.SolutionsEvents.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.