RE: STC Letter to the Editor

["Grant, Christopher" <CGrant -at- glhec -dot- org>]

> During al this discussion, every kind and nasty word of it, 
> there is a BIG misconception. The STC competition is *not* a "technical
writing
> competition," but a "publications, art, and online" 
> competition.

Uhh - it's the STC.  "Technical communication."  Yes, the contest involves
things other than user manuals, documenting things other than hardware or
software, but if the Society for _Technical_ Communication is putting on a
contest involving printed stuff, diagrams, and online stuff, it most
definitely involves _technical_ writing.

> No where on the entry form does it say "technical writing 
> competition."

Page 1 of the form: "Society for Technical Communication."  You're telling
me that the Society for Technical Communication is putting on a competition
that doesn't involve technical writing? 

But you're right.  Nowhere does it say "this is a technical writing
competition."  In fact, nowhere is the general realm of the competition
named.  Instead, it's just an "STC Competition."  Because no specificity
about the competition is provided, one goes back to the name of the
organization, the Society for Technical Communication, and makes a
reasonable assumption that such an organization would put on a "technical
communication (writing) competition.)  Perhaps the STC should be more clear,
and write, "The STC Format and Layout Competition." 

> Yes, Andrew, materials do need to be technically accurate, 
> where possible.

Wrong.  Materials need to be technically accurate, or they're useless.
Saying technical accuracy is a need "where possible" makes it appear that
technical accuracy is an afterthought.  Technical accuracy is the lynch pin
- it doesn't matter how pretty or well-organized something is, if it's
wrong, it's useless.

> correct--phone numbers, addresses, etc. But advocating testing the
published 
> materials against the product (what is the product of a train trip?), is
not only a 
> great expense, but in many cases a physical improbability.

Fine.  So call it a "Format and Layout Competition" and you're in the clear.

> If you would make the effort and take the time to read the 
> judging standards for the pubs (see www.stc-phoenix.com, competitions, 
> judging), you would see that the criteria are grouped, starting with
Content and 
> Organization, Copy Editing, and *finally* Visual Design.

Okay.  I took some time and looked at this.  What I find over and over, in
each category, is that content gets short shrift, and that when content IS
addressed, it doesn't get much significant attention.  When I look at the
criteria overall as a whole, I get the impression that the criteria are
attempting to determine if the piece has been well-edited, well-formatted,
and well-organized.  These things are important, yes, but do not require a
technical writer to deliver them.  I would expect most college students of
any discipline to be able to write something well-edited, well-formatted,
and well-organized.

Also, content is grouped with organization.  There are VERY FEW _real_
content criteria.  For example, take the Publications Evaluation: Manuals.
I can find 3 criteria that pertain to content (in general - there's nothing
pertaining to specific content or the accuracy thereof):

- Organization and conventions ... are explained
- ... logical development of the subject matter at the right level of detail
for user and task
- Technical complexity is handled effectively

Total number of other criteria: 38.

I have a problem with an evaluation of a manual in a competition put on by
the Society of Technical Communication where only 3 out of 41 criteria are
about content, and where there are no specific content criteria.  I think
such an evaluation will determine if the work is well-edited, formatted, and
organized, but won't determine if the work is a leading example of good
technical communication.  

I also find the "overall criteria" lacking:.  Right now, it reads:

- Fulfills the purpose for the intended audience
- Integrates all elements into a readable and usable publication
- Shows evidence of creativity or originality
- Projects a professional image of that publication's sponsor

... uuhh, how about "Provides complete and accurate documentation of the
product or process."  Nowhere in these evaluations could I find anything
about checking the accuracy or completness of the content.

As it stands now, from looking over these evaluations, a manual can WIN THE
COMPETITION and be 100%, completely innacurate.  Completely.  Is this the
type of manual that the STC wants to brand as an "award-winning"
publication?  

> As a judge, I have put in hours, uncompensated, evaluating 
> the materials assigned to me. It is something I wanted to do and am 
> learning from the experience. I am not an STC "elder."

I think it's admirable to be proactive, but isn't it at the same time
frustrating that it's impossible to determine with the given criteria if
what you're evaluating is even _correct_?  

Chris Grant




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.