Re: STC Letter to the Editor

[Andrew Plato <gilliankitty -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

--- SteveFJong -at- aol -dot- com wrote:

> No comment, Andrew, that three of your four "reforms" are irrelevant"?

You obviously set me straight. Apparently you need confirmation of that.

Confirmed:

1. Some STC competitions graciously allow non-STC folks to enter. 
2. Some STC competitions are free to enter.
3. Some STC competitions apparently allow non-STC members to judge.

However, in my limited experience, I have never seen any of this. All the
competitions I've seen cost money to enter, the judges were all STC elders, and
all entrants (at least winners) were dedicated STC folk. 

> That's because, in your mind, you assume that writers only format, not write. 
> I wish you would not believe so strongly your own marketing hype; it's rather 
> insulting to the rest of us.

****REAL**** writers write. Desktop publishers and "documentation specialists"
and other NON-writers just format. 

And in my experience a lot of people calling themselves technical writers are NOT
writers. They are desktop publishers, doc coordinators, something else. They are
NOT authoring anything. 

I am insulted when some butthead tells me what an accomplished writer he/she is
because he/she can apply styles to text and design XML templates. That's ain't
writing. And I don't give a rat's butt what those stupid seminars tell you. A
real writer WRITES! 

> As for the competitions being "a sham," you set an unreasonable standard.

Ah. So technical accuracy, content value, and insight are now "unreasonable
standards." 

You're right, you'll never work for me. Apparently excellence is now an
"unreasonable standard."

> I think you missed my point that companies routinely release products without 
> getting user feedback. To do the kind of analysis I alluded to in my previous 
> reply--which assesses not just the documentation and its accuracy, but also 
> the product--would require access to the product (and, by your suggestion 
> actual end users.) That service would be extremely valuable to companies, 
> because it would be so rare.

If it is prohibitively too costly for STC to judge the actual value of the
content, then simply change the name and expectations of the competitions to
properly reflect the nature of the competition. Rather than call them "technical
communication" competitions call them by what they really are: style & format
competitions. Then there won't be any confusion or misleading advertising. 

Andrew Plato 



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Check out SnagIt - The Screen Capture Standard!
Download a free 30-day trial from http://www.techsmith.com/rdr/txt/twr
Find out what all the other tech writers, including Dan, already know!

All-new RoboHelp X3 is now shipping! Get single sourcing, print-quality
documentation, conditional text and much more, in the most monumental
release ever. Save $100! Order online at 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.