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: craft vs. science vs. art From:"Dick Margulis " <margulis -at- mail -dot- fiam -dot- net> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Mon, 24 Jun 2002 11:44:14 -0400
Phil Levy <PLevy -at- epion -dot- com> wrote:
>
>Just a minute, Dick. I think you agree with me: you say that the writer is
>given a template, which implies repeatability and replaceable parts.
Phil,
I think I still disagree with you, even if you think I agree with you ;-) A template implies, to me, some consistency of style and organization, not repeatability and replaceable parts.
> And the
>whole concept of a template is a god one
You didn't think I was going to let that typo pass unnoticed did you ;-)
>as long as the template is very
>detailed. But regarding process: if the writer does the job all by him or
>herself there is no quality control until the end, when it's too late.
Both quality control and quality assurance are really in the hands of the writer. If I am qualified to do the job (good at the craft), then I am more qualified than anyone else to know what the quality of my work is. If I am given to producing slipshod work (lousy at the craft), why on earth would you not fire my butt? On the other hand, if you ask me to relinquish control to a process, then you are treating me as a fungible resource, and I have no incentive to take responsibility for the quality of my output. The work I turn out is just so much hamburger meat to you, and you'll irradiate it at the end of the process. Is that what you want?
This
>is what I mean by a process: more than one person working on the same
>document.
>
Sure, more than one person works on it. The SME provides information. The writer produces a draft. Perhaps the SME and an editor and fact-checker (QA) and a proofreader and a production specialist get into the act, too, before the final version goes out the door. As I said, you've got to have some sort of process; I'm not averse to that idea. I'm averse to the idea that the act of writing is subject to process control.
As I said in the paragraph you replied to:
>>If you get past, "here's the due date; here's the
>>template; here's who to send it to for review," you
>>are micromanaging; and that can be counterproductive.
>
Dick
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.
Check out RoboDemo for tutorials! It makes creating full-motion software
demonstrations and other onscreen support materials easy and intuitive.
Need RoboHelp? Save $100 on RoboHelp Office in May with our mail-in rebate.
Go to http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
---
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.
