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.
> And the only one who called Andrew any names was... Andrew, in his
original
> post -- "Now, all in unison: Andrew is a moron! :-)"
>
> I really don't understand why Tracy's post got so many people so riled
up.
> Compared to many posts I've seen on the list, it was nothing.
There is a big difference between me saying "I am a moron" and you saying
"Yeah, you're a moron." As masters of the communicative arts we should all
know that difference.
I am not mad at Tracy or anybody. My skin is thicker than that. I know she
was just trying to be cute and funny. And I did smile at her post.
Nevertheless, insulting somebody while they are trying to explain a
mistake comes off as a bit rude. If you did this to an SME at your job,
you would quickly earn that SME's disrespect and might wind up with your
hand out at the unemployment office.
And as I have said many times. It is one thing to criticize a person's
ideas or behaviors. It is another thing to criticize the actual person. I
will concede fully that I have come close to crossing the line many times.
I have also gotten my hand slapped by Eric and others. I have also worked
very hard over the past few years to word my posts such that I focus on
the issue and not the author. I wish my colleagues in this community would
make the same effort.
Which leads us to a lesson, as writers we all should know how to express
nuance. Its the hardest aspect of writing. But when it comes to technical
writing, the ability to accurately describe nuances in concepts is vital.
This whole little bungle is a prime example. There is nothing really WRONG
with me saying "get and IDS here are three." Its just that it wasn't
totally accurate. Some of those products really are not IDS's. There is a
nuance there, one that companies like ISS have gone to great lengths to
make part of their product.
We often complain how people don't notice the "little things" in our work.
Well to people who take content seriously, this is one of those "little
things." Expressing an idea in the most correct and accurate manner is
not as simple as copy-pasting an email from the engineer and then spending
the rest of the afternoon deciding whether you like Garamond or Times
fonts.
This is ultimately why a lot of technical documentation is useless. It may
be generally technically correct and look great, but since the writer did
not fully understand the technology, they did not have a handle on the
nuances of the products. The engineers that review the material, often do
so in a vacuum. If the material is basically correct, they'll sign off and
be done with it. But that doesn't mean the document is ACCURATE. I
routinely clarify and correct information given to me from SMEs. That is,
after all - MY FRICKIN' JOB!
Last night, I read this syrupy "What is a Technical Writer" paper from
some tech writing company (no I won't name names). It was rather funny. It
started out with an explanation about how its the tech writer's job to
clarify, refine, and organize complex information. (Sounds good).
The paper then spent the next 10 pages explaining this company's
experience and expertise at using FrameMaker and their trademarked
information mapping techniques. (uhhhh, what happened to the clarification
stuff?)
A perfect example where good intentions met bad implementation. I realize
the authors of this doc meant to explain how they are masters of using
said tools and techniques. But like so many other writers, they totally
missed the entire reason for their existence...that stuff about clarifying
information.
When you hire a college professor, do you pick the one that has the most
experience in his/her area? Or do you pick the one who can write the
neatest on the white board?
I realize there is a lot of newbie tech writers on this board who want to
know "what do I do to succeed in this industry." Well, today's events
illustrate how you can get ahead:
Analyze information, don't be a nitpicker. Understand what you are talking
about and be able to explain its many facets. The tech writers who make
the BIG money are not FrameMaker gurus (although many know Frame very
well), they are good communicators who are able to condense, digest, and
explain complex ideas with clarity, grace, and most of all - nuance. These
are people who companies are begging them to work for them.
They also know when to point that high-powered analysis back at themselves
and admit: I am a moron.
Andrew Plato
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com
Collect Royalties, Not Rejection Letters! Tell us your rejection story when you
submit your manuscript to iUniverse Nov. 6 -Dec. 15 and get five free copies of
your book. What are you waiting for? http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr
Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.
---
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.
