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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Plato [mailto:gilliankitty -at- yahoo -dot- com]
These types of reviews are going to be mostly for style, layout, and design.
Something that is very subjective. Furthermore, most reviewers will not
possess
the technical or scientific skills to evaluate the value or accuracy of the
content.
Thus, such a review might be a nice way to see how others feel about your
style, but it won't give you much in the way of insight to the value of the
material.
-----Jason's Pithy Addition-----
This is dead on. One of my co-workers produced a manual for a rather
complicated
feature of a telecomm box. He did an outstanding job at organizing and
developing
the content--so much so that customers actually sent in unsolicited positive
comments
about the book. He submitted it to an STC competition, and here is the
feedback
that he received:
* The cover needed more color (out of our hands--corporate branding and all)
* It could use more pictures (hmmm. it was a command line interface, with
the text
screens shown. I guess he should have captured the hyperterm window
instead
of simply providing the screen text).
* Could use more color in the body (sigh. how many of you get to do color
manuals?
I don't).
* And, if I recall correctly, there was something about the fonts.
Basically, the review left off one of the most important aspects of
technical communication--the actual communication of information. Now,
even if the reviewers knew nothing about the subject matter, they should
still
be able to get a feel for the logical presentation of the information.
If I recall, he had to fill out a bunch of info about the audience and the
purpose of the manual. They could easily see if the manual lived up to
those
areas. Instead, the judging was based entirely on superficial criteria.
To me, this tends to favor manuals written by lone writers or small groups
with
more say in the presentational aspects of the manuals, not corporate
flunkies
who work miracles within a rigid framework. It also heavily favors documents
that use full color printing--basically annual reports, marketing brochures,
etc.
I realize that it is difficult to judge an item on the accuracy of the
content
when you might not be an expert in that content area. However, if, as a lot
of people on this list claim, we can write about and edit information that
we
do not have the technical background to understand, then can we not also
review
a manual on more than just the pretty colors and fonts? Can we not look at
the
organization and logical flow of the material?
Buy or upgrade to RoboHelp X3 today and receive the WebHelp
Merge Module for FREE ($299 value). RoboHelp X3's all-new
features include conditional text, completely re-engineered
printed documentation output, Context-sensitive Help Toolkit,
single-source layouts, and more!
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.
