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.
Subject:RE: What to look for in a technical editor From:Kim Roper <kim -dot- roper -at- pixelink -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Thu, 22 May 2003 15:35:27 -0400
Mark Baker wrote:
> Kim, you are confusing failure with blame. The screwdriver
> may not be to
> blame, but it it failed to drive in the nail, then it failed.
> If tools are
> misapplied, the generally fail.
I was using the technical interpretation of "fail" by considering whether
the thing (or person) did as it was designed (or trained) to do, not simply
what someone wanted it (him, her) to do. Sure, you could say that if a tool
"failed" if didn't do something it was never designed to do, but it's not
particularly illuminating in the failure analysis, and that generalization
could have you barking up the wrong tree when looking for the cause.
But if that's the definition you're using, so be it. Thanks for clarifying.
> I realize that if a school child does not pass a test, we are
> now obliged to
> say that the test was missapplied, not that the child failed.
> However, I
> think we are going to far when we start to bend the language
> out of shape to
> protect the self esteem of a screwdriver -- or even an engineer.
Yup, you read far too much into my words. School children and self esteem
have nothing to do with what I said or what I meant. Being an engineer, I'm
really quite literal minded. The psychological baggage has no relevance in
the technical context of failure.
And this is now so far off topic, I'm dropping it.
---
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.