RE: STC Letter to the Editor

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

"Grant, Christopher" <CGrant -at- glhec -dot- org> wrote:

<<Sure.  A good writer ought to be able to make a slick product.  AFTER they've
      written something that is technically accurate and complete.>>

Nobody on this list has EVER said design comes before content or replaces it.

<<But it's worth even LESS if the information in it isn't technically accurate
and complete.>>

I repeat : Nobody on this list has EVER said design comes before content.

<<In my experience, I have NEVER heard a user say, "Boy, I just can't use this
manual because it's so UGLY!">>

Well, actually the reason I'd never use the Microsoft knowledge base (and many
others) is because of design. The content is all there, but digging it out is a
pain.

<<OTOH, I have OFTEN heard users say, "I don't use this manual because the
information in it is useless and incorrect.">>

True. So what the HECK are we arguing? Where's the poor lost soul obsessing over
fonts instead of talking to SMEs on the list? Who's the SOD that's demanding
that they have a fully functional template before they gather any information
from the SMEs? Who's the lazy dink who doesn't want to learn about what they are
documenting in order to adequately convey the information to the intended
audience? A yes, they're all out there producing the useless docs and attending
STC meetings. Or we've met one low life lazy loser so we're going to keep
harping on about them and paint everyone with the same brush.

It is true that some have come on the list and fretted about starting without an
audience analysis, template, or process. But most of the time they are politely
pointed in the right direction of performing all that while they do the real
work of documenting and creating content. Amazingly the polite responses help
the original poster without insulting the poster, the members of the list,
members of a particular society, or techwriters and techwriting in general. Nor
do they try to veil the insults in humour directed at the whiners and the lazy
(which always label ALL techwriters or the majority of techwriters as whiny and
lazy).

Unfortunately the view of "All writing is crap and I'll assume so unless dragged
kicking and screaming to proof otherwise.", which is already a questionable
stance from a professional on a professional list, is expressed as "All writing
is crap and so is yours. Get the content right forget about grammar and tools
and format." Which for obvious reasons sets off these run on threads.

At this stage the debate has descended to the standard trench of falsely
polarized views and possible trolls. The only problem is that the argument of
Content is king, tools and format are useless is trying to argue for an absolute
that does not exist. The staunchest supporter even admits that tools knowledge
and format knowledge are prerequisites for employment. But I for one would like
to know where techwriters are expected to keep their knowledge current on such
subjects if we are not allowed to discuss them on the list or in a society
without having ourselves branded as 'not real writers'.

What was originally a thread about something long forgotten (something about
design possibly having an importance in content delivery wasn't it?), but has
degenerated into an STC and writers in general bashing spree by those with a
chip on their shoulder against all that is wrong in the world. The supporters of
the article/STC/balanced approach are only saying that there are two things to
technical writing. One, technical. Gathering and creating content based on the
documented technology or product to the level required by the intended audience
(and if conscientious to a level that is a degree more involved than the
intended audience). Two, communication. The organisation, delivery/presentation,
design, and yes fonts. But into the same category add indexes, guides, type of
manual, and all the rest.

Those that are arguing against the content only model are only pointing out the
blazingly obvious. That there is a minimum of formatting, layout, and grammar
that are required. Also, that if the content IS taken care of, why not
investigate what can be done to improve the delivery and digestion of that
content.

The even remotely moderate on the list have already understood that there is
place for discussion of both aspects on the list and in any society that
concerns techwriters. Unless completely addle-minded it shouldn't be too far a
reach to grasp the concept that the two aspects can be discussed and judged
separately and that for excellent and useful end product it is not a question of
one or the other, but a solid grasp and integration of the two. In the order of
importance it has even been agreed to by all that content and knowledge should
come first.

We've been through this every time the discussion of content/format/knowledge
comes up. It also always results in another thread asking what the 'normal'
percentage of time devoted to each task is. And every time there is complete
agreement with the general time division percentages. Why? Simply because it is
only a small percentage of our work that overlaps. Unfortunately requests for
help at streamlining the 5 - 10% of the works that is being done as the deadline
approaches are greeted with cries of formatting doesn't count, content is King!
You're not a "Real Writer" TM if you're fondling fonts. Without the
consideration that just perhaps the list is perfectly useless at helping gather
information about a genome splicer, new drug interactions, how high power
transmission works, or which is the best way to document top secret military
hardware or proprietary business practice. AND, just maybe if the project isn't
in a crunch and there IS time to devote to design and layout because the current
design leaves something to be desired and all the information that can be
gathered at this point has been.

Once you've gathered all the information and created the content, why not grab a
few STC winning publications to see what positive presentation and organisation
elements you could easily adapt to your own publications.


As for text files being adequate, balderdash. They have their place, but if they
were adequate for most needs all those 'For Dummies" books wouldn't be selling
so well. Now would they? And what sets the "For Dummies" series apart from all
the rest? Could it be format, layout, and presentation? I think that proves the
point.

I've wasted enough electrons for now,
Eric L. Dunn




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