Re: Definition of Engineer (was: What to do?)

["Chuck Martin" <cm -at- writeforyou -dot- com>]

"David Locke" <dlocke -at- texas -dot- net> wrote in message news:218113 -at- techwr-l -dot-  -dot-  -dot- 
<snip>
>
> The State of Texas now license software engineers. And, if they come from
> computer science they are grandfathered in, in terms of being able to take
> the test, but the questions on the test require an engineering education,
> and not a software engineering education. So the computer science people
are
> going to end up not getting licensed. They can look to their professional
> associations for not protecting their interests just like we can look to
STC
> and say the same thing.

Isn't that a problem with the politics of the situation and the exam itself
(not being designed to properly test the knowledge and skills specific to
the trade)?

>
> So what would happen if we started calling ourselves engineers, which I
for
> am not and never could be, most of us would be out of work. That would do
> very little to protect the jobs from going overseas or reduce the cost of
> technical writing or amplify the value of technical writing.
>
We might make it so the title of "Technical Writer" (or similar) represents
some level of minimum competence, rather than anyone being able to lay claim
to the term just because they say they are.

True, the existing process can weed out the incompetents (and the fond
fondlers), but not so much during flush times, with the result that far too
many people still have "12:00" flashing on their VCR because they (a) still
can't figure out the interface to change it, and (b) still can't decipher
the instructions.

I'd venture to say that most people--including decision makers--probably
believe that if someone walks in claiming to be, say, an electrical
engineer, that the claim is backed by some minimum amount of education. Too
many of the same people believe that if someone walks in claiming to be a
technical writer, that, well, how hard can writing be? Who suffers from that
belief? I'll bet you're going to say my answer will be "we do." Nope.
Products users do.

Advocating that this discipline is an engineering one isn't about getting
respect or licensing or equal pay or anything like that. It's about a better
user experience, and having the training and the experience to be able to
provide that. That's also a message that can better be translated into
bottom-line figures: happier customers buy more and tell more people,
un-frustrated users don't swamp technical support lines, and so on.

>From what I've read recently, the regulation of the word "engineer" in some
areas seems to stem from politics and protectionism. Times change, we learn,
and some places just either refuse to change with the times or are slow to.
50 years ago, who even heard of the term "technical writer?" Even 20 years
ago. (Yes the STC just celebrated its 50th, but this was a career choice
much farther below the employment radar than now.)

As we learn what this field entails, as we evolve, we see that it does
indeed fit within the spectrum of engineering disciplines. Denying this
evolution doens't stop it from occurring.

Chuck Martin



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROBOHELP FOR FRAMEMAKER TRIAL NOW AVAILABLE!

RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.  
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for 
competitive pricing or download a trial at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l4

---
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.