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.
Kevin McLauchlan wrote (in small part):
> OK, so if that effort now breaks, is it because the documentalists were
> not performing as well as the code-monkeys? Or is it because, maybe,
> there are important differences between the two processes that the glib
> equation didn't cover? Other? What if it goes the other way? What if
> the documentalists seem to shine on all metrics, compared to the
> code-monkeys? Are the code-monkeys a bunch of lazy, incompetent simians?
> Or is it possible that the metrics aren't illuminating the right things?
> Apples and iguanas?
A key difference between the two situations is that the output produced
by the code monkeys is interpreted by a computer chip (in the case of
an application) or by some software application running on a computer chip.
In either case, the interpretation of the code monkeys' work product is
ideally deterministic, or at least relatively predictable and repeatable. In
other words, it generally works or it doesn't; and if it doesn't work, it
usually will fail in the same way given the same set of cirrcumstances.
(It's the problem of duplicating the *exact* circumstances that can
make troubleshooting, debugging, and root cause analysis so difficult,
but that's a whole different discussion.)
But documentation is interpreted by human beings, each of whom may
interpret the same work product in slightly (or majorly) different ways.
How can one objectively gauge the "correctness" of a document when
different people get slightly different meanings from the same sequence
of words (something we see on this list all the time)? And the
interpretation problem is only compounded if the document was not
carefully and skillfully written in the first place. The writer may have a
correct understanding of the facts, and may write about them in a way
that makes sense to himself, but that is no guarantee that anyone else
will come to exactly the same understanding upon reading those words.
_________________________________________________________________
Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! http://biggestloser.msn.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
