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: Quality of source material from Development From:Andrew Plato <intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Mon, 17 Dec 2001 15:12:06 -0800 (PST)
> In a very succinct nutshell, there are two types of thinkers, "mappers"
> and "packers". Mappers think in a fashion similar to a relational
> database (Oracle) whereas packers think in a fashion more nearly akin to
> an old heirarchial database (DBIII). These divergent thought processses
> are the source of major communication problems.
Yeah, and the Green Bay Mappers just doesn't sound right.
I've heard this described as "compartmentalizers" vs. "connectors".
Compartmentalizers want to organize ideas, concepts, and information into
small, digestible packages. Connectors seek out patterns and focus on
explaining the relationships between different pieces.
I won't beat around the bush - I think mapping is far superior mode of
analyzing information. If you can map out a complex concept, you'll have
it licked and you can leverage that map for application elsewhere.
Compartmentalizers tend to be great at organizing stuff, but terrible at
making sense out of all that stuff.
To put it in writing terms: mappers make good writers, packers make good
editors. The problem comes when packers try to write. They break down all
the information into bite sized chunks that make absolutely no sense when
read as a whole. Its the fundamental flaw in information mapping theory
and the reason why so many technical manuals are so bad. There was nobody
asking questions like "what does this do?" "why does it do that?" and
"what does this affect?"
Andrew Plato
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Be a published author! iUniverse gives you: a high-quality paperback, a
custom cover design, and distribution to 25,000 retailers. And it's
affordable. Join our almost 10,000 published authors today. 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.
