TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: Proof that content is more important than style
Subject:Re: Proof that content is more important than style From:"Bonnie Granat" <bgranat -at- editors-writers -dot- info> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:21:14 -0500
>
> Okay, then answer this: why then do writers on this list, throughout all of
STC
> and in all these certification courses spend the grand majority of their
effort
> and time on issues of style, structure, and layout?
So, you know how writers spend the "grand majority of their effort and time"?
If it is "given" that content
> be "there" and "accurate" then one would think that professional
organizations
> and writers would give content a little more prominent place in the scheme
of
> things.
Why on earth would anyone ask *me* or *you* about a technical content
question? Do you expect people will post questions *here* to ask about new
technologies rather than go elsewhere? Why would you make such an assumption?
I might ask certain posters here about a language issue, but there isn't a
single poster here to whom I would pose a technical question about content.
>
> Everybody seems quick to agree with me, but that doesn't translate into what
I
> read and see. My personal anecdotes are about user manuals that contain
totally
> misleading information, lack any insight, and fail to address fundamental
> technical prerequisites.
>
Your logical error is in assuming that the writers of those manuals are your
audience here. Why would you assume such a thing? Why do you continually talk
to the posters here as if they were those writers of bad manuals? Do you have
any idea how foolish that makes you look? Know your audience! And do you
really think that so-called writers who don't care about content are going to
be on a list like this? What planet are you living on, anyway?
> If content is such a given, then why are so many writers having such a hard
time
> getting it right?
>
How the hell do you expect people HERE to know about so-called writers who
don't care about content? Are we psychic? You refuse to see us as we really
are and you insist we must be the bad writers who produce crap. Why can't you
accept that WE are not the writers who product crap?
The people on this list are telling you content is a given. Why do you assume
that writers who don't care about content are reading this list?
> My theory is that content is basically given lip service. Everybody agrees
that
> it's important, but nobody *really* wants to do what it takes to get it
right.
> Therefore, a three-step rationalization is used:
>
Your "nobody" is referring to people who are not on this list. Why address an
audience that isn't here?
> 1. Reassignment: Offload all responsibility for content to the mystical SME.
When
> the docs are wrong and useless, blame the SME who didn't deliver complete
> information.
You are talking to people who are not on this list, Andrew. The only effect
you have is insulting the people that *are* here and who have repeatedly told
you that content is so basic as not to be assumed to be something that has to
be continually mentioned.
You may *want* the people here to be the bad writers, but you are sooner or
later going to have to accept that we are NOT. Perhaps you are so frustrated
that we seem as good a target as the bad writers, but I assure you, we are not
the fantasy target that you make us out to be. We are professionals and human
beings and it is getting rather tedious to deal with your fantastic
projections. It is close to pathological how you cannot accept reality and
continually accuse us of being those bad writers. Do you also think that
people are talking about you and trying to kill you? It is just as nutty, you
know, to continually talk to us as if we were the bad writers.
>
> 2. Redirection: Argue that style and structure are of equal importance to
the
> content.
You are talking to people who are not on this list, Andrew. The only effect
you have is insulting the people that *are* here and who have repeatedly told
you that content is so basic as not to be assumed to be something that has to
be continually mentioned.
>
> 3. Redefinition: Because style and structure are so important, the writer
must
> focus most of his/her time on ensure that is done properly.
You are talking to people who are not on this list, Andrew. The only effect
you have is insulting the people that *are* here and who have repeatedly told
you that content is so basic as not to be assumed to be something that has to
be continually mentioned.
>
> Once these three things are in place, our writer is free to deal with
matters of
> structure and ignore all matters of content - as that is no longer his/her
job.
You are talking to people who are not on this list, Andrew. The only effect
you have is insulting the people that *are* here and who have repeatedly told
you that content is so basic as not to be assumed to be something that has to
be continually mentioned.
>
> I think this is why so much documentation is so bad. Writers are not being
held
> responsible for their content, and as such they are putting out crap. If
> companies started holding their writers responsible for the accuracy of the
> documentation, you would see a dramatic shift away from style and structure
as
> writers began to worry more about content.
>
You are talking to people who are not on this list, Andrew. The only effect
you have is insulting the people that *are* here and who have repeatedly told
you that content is so basic as not to be assumed to be something that has to
be continually mentioned.
> And the RFCs are a good example of that. They use a very simple, no-nonsense
> structure and style that has been in use for 20+ years. There is no need to
keep
> tweaking and fondling it because it serves its purpose.
>
I give up. I think you are mentally disturbed and this is my last effort to
get through to you.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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!
Order RoboHelp X3 in November and receive $100 mail in rebate, FREE WebHelp
Merge Module and the new RoboPDF - add powerful PDF output functionality
to RoboHelp X3. Order online today 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.
