Re: STC Letter to the Editor

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

"Shea Michael EXT" <> wrote ...

> Come on folks. I think we all agree that STC volunteers cannot ever
> judge the technical accuracy.  Yes technical accuracy is important. 
> It can be life-threateningly important when we are documenting, let's 
> say medical equipment.

Cool, we agree. Then all STC competitions should be immediately renamed to "Style
and Layout Competitions" to more properly reflect what is being judged. 

> However, you can have a technically accurate book in which information:
> 
> * cannot be found (because it isn't in the index)
> * is buried in minutia 
> * is poorly expressed
> * is overlooked (because the text is poorly arranged or formatted)
> 
> These are things that STC volunteers can judge. They are also important 
> to the task of communicating. How many of you have had frightfully intelligent 
> teachers who put you to sleep because they lectured at their own feet or used
> vocabulary that was over your head? I'm sure that everything he or she said 
> was technically accurate...but was it useful? No, because it could not be 
> delivered in a way which could be understood!

Delivery, style, presentation are all relevant issues in good communication.
However, they are all predicated by the accuracy and value of the information
being presented. Sometimes, ugly documentation can be the most useful. As I said
early, some of the most important information I've ever read about a product came
out of a very homely text file. Not a single ounce of FrameMakery or
single-sorcery went into that material. And it was plenty useful. 

Accuracy, value, and insight then overshadow delivery, presentation, and style.
All the style in the universe can't make up for inaccurate information. However,
ugly material can still be useful to those willing to wade through the messy
text. 

> Suggesting that the competition be based on user feedback is a noble gesture,
> but laughable. How many writers out there ever received any reader feedback
> whatsoever. We all are aware of the poor rate of return on surveys. Besides 
> some documents are only ever read by a handful of people.

That says something right there. Generally, when people don't much care for the
work, they say nothing. 

Users don't feedback on docs because the overwhelming lot of docs out there are
awful. Endless streams of dry, clunky instructions slapped together with a swell
looking template. No insight, no value, and often major lapses in accuracy. 

> Let's try to be realistic here folks and not quixotically charge the windmills
of technical accuracy.

You're right - who the hell needs all this damn accuracy. What the hell has
accuracy ever done for the world?  

Andrew Plato 

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


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

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!

---
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.