Re: STC Letter to the Editor

[eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com]

This discussion is pointless, because like so many others if we don't agree
exactly to all the terms it will go on and on. If we ever do start to agree or
try to define some common ground, the target will shift.

<<So the only way we can discuss content issues is if we have a specific subject
in mind? I disagree. Content, as a concept, permeates all subjects. Just because
you're writing about Wal-Mart procedures (to pull an example mentioned earlier)
doesn't mean the content is any more or less important and doesn't mean we can't
insist on excellence in content.>>

If the Walmart procedures can be judged then what for the love of <<insert
favorite deity here>> is the complaint? The logic here is circular. Please
explain why/how the STC contest promotes poor content? Have you ever bothered to
read the rules as others have suggested or found a particularly poor document
content-wise that has won an STC award? Or is this all just a personal
chip-on-my-shoulder attack against the STC?

But I don't want to necessarily defend the STC or its rules. I am neither a
member nor have I read the requirements of the contest. I do however challenge
the dissenters to come up with criteria for documentation contest. And guess
what? Once you reach the level of excellence that a good contest requires, it's
not likely to be a question of content accuracy, but one of usability.

<<One has to wonder about the priorities of a community when the issue of
paramount importance is relegated behind issues of marginal importance.>>

Funny, this is a truism that we are supposed to swallow whole because admitted
haters and detractors of the organization say so?

<<The downside of this is that the tech writing community has a large contingent
of writers who are sitting in tech writing jobs playing with styles and fonts
all
day convinced they are accomplished authors because STC tells them that this is
what a writer does.>>

Groan. This is a tired and dead horse isn't it? The response from anybody on the
list with half a brain cell and the desire to improve/maintain the profession is
that these writers should be moved to copy editing, typist pools, or otherwise
run out of techwriting. With the current job market I find it hard to believe
there are many of these left.

<<These people bounce from job to job, obsessing over fonts and single-sourcing
while STC cheers them on. Nobody steps in front of them to say - did it ever
occur to you that fonts and styles are really not that important?>>

Because of course there are just so many people hiring that there's tons of open
jobs to bounce to right?

<<You judge them by how well people like and consume the work. If that isn't
possible, then you make it clear that you ARE judging by superficial aspects -
like style and presentation.>>

And unless you have some shred of documented and demonstrable evidence that this
is what the STC is actually doing then fine. Find us one document that is
evidently filled with inaccurate content and has won recognition. Otherwise this
is just your jaundiced and prejudiced opinion against a group you admittedly
dislike and they couldn't do anything to satisfy your views.

<<And why is it that so many manuals suck ass?

1. Writers don't take the time to make them interesting.
2. Management doesn't give them the time.>>

How on earth is interesting a content issue? You can have completely dry
uninteresting and completely accurate documents that nobody reads and nobody can
understand. To make them interesting requires just the sort of formatting layout
and other issues that you are so vehemently against.

Also, by your top two, bad writers or lack of content don't even come into it.
Seems highly flawed reasoning and seems highly contradictory. Or, could it be
that all is intertwined and that it is indeed possible to judge the
effectiveness of information delivery separate of content accuracy?

<<There is? Who decides what that minimum level is? As I have said 1000 times
now,
some of the most important information I've ever read came out of a homely text
file. A file that gave me EXACTLY what I wanted, yet would have lost every STC
competition it was ever entered.>>

<<So, on one hand we have a homely text file that did exactly what it was
supposed
to do - communicate information to a reader. And on the other hand we have this
mysterious minimum level of acceptability that STC has established which would
have kicked out a document that did its job perfectly?>>

All right then. We're judging your text file against my linked, indexed,
illustrated, and animated on-line document. They contain the same information.
DO you have a clue as to why the text file loses now? It loses because they are
BOTH technically accurate and complete, but one is far better at communicating
the information to the audience. It may also make it easier for a wider audience
to learn and appreciate the subject as opposed to a text file that requires a
knowledgeable and determined reader to find the information required.

And how do we judge the minimum level of accuracy? Do you think the
aforementioned Walmart guide was released without being checked?

<<How? if you don't know the product, the technology, or its use how do you know
if the right information is being delivered concisely.>>

Because any documentation that wants to really claim supremacy should have both
STC and industry specific credentials. The point is that you can judge whether a
document effectively and concisely delivers information even if it IS
mis-information. It is those information/industry non-specific documentation
processes and methods that we as Technical Communicators can share on techwriter
lists and in techwriter associations.

<<Assume all you want, I demand proof. I don't just assume the gun ain't loaded
and wave it around. I don't just assume those friendly people in Nigeria really
want to send me 30 million dollars. I don't assume that data is correct.>>

True, but is it effective communication or not? If judged in a category that was
about bilking people of their money I think it could be a winner. The STC does
not claim to judge the truth of the data, but how well it is communicated.
Without communication your only a washed up wanna-be technician or designer. To
be well rounded we should be members of a communication forum/group and an
industry group.

I wouldn't expect the STC to judge the validity of Railroad documentation but I
am interested in the methods used to document software and hardware in other
industries to see how the best practices can be adopted, the reason I'm on
techwr-l. The entire argument against the STC simply claims that unless its
industry specific minutia that's being discussed it worthless. Well guess what?
I couldn't really give a rodents behind about routers, or software protocols. I
will if I want to document them, but certainly not now. If we have to discuss
content a level other than a conceptual one, I think it's time to disband
Techwr-l and go of and isolate ourselves in industry specific groups.

But let's face it, I don't think the various prejudices are going to changed by
this discussion are they?

Eric L. Dunn



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