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: Do TWs need to be formally educated in engineering and science?was, RE: old school
Subject:RE: Do TWs need to be formally educated in engineering and science?was, RE: old school From:"McLauchlan, Kevin" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com> To:"Gene Kim-Eng" <techwr -at- genek -dot- com>, <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Thu, 22 May 2008 09:49:16 -0400
Gene Kim-Eng reiterated some of his usual sensible stuff, then said:
> Query a group of writers
> who have been going at each other for hours over
> some arcane point of grammar, and very seldom
> will you find a tech person among them; the techies
> tend to run for cover whenever these types of writer
> food fights get started, and just want to know when
> it's all over and the styleguide has been updated so
> they can get on with their work.
Back when my work got reviewed by several bodies (not just the QA guy
who is now my only reviewer), the people MOST likely (even when
instructed otherwise) to hand me back copy with stylistic, grammatical,
and formatting scribbles (usually in black ink, instead of red from the
pen that I'd handed to them...), were the SMEs.
Sometimes, it was at the expense of a thorough technical review, if
time... er... ran out. You could tell, because the scribbling got
thinner or vanished altogether in the second half of the document.
By contrast, when Marketing and Product Management used to have a go at
my stuff, I didn't get a lot of technical correction (well, I'm not
usually technically incorrect anyway) but I did get useful observations
about clarity or possibly missing antecedents or new thoughts about
audience and so on. In other words, stuff like "I think I follow this,
but people at XYZ corp (new big customer) won't have this background.
Can you broaden the intro and add another example that would be more
familiar to someone with experience in the ABC milieu - C.H. can
probably help; he's our Sales-Eng rep with the most exposure there."
But now that I'm reminiscing... a senior Product Manager named Randy
used to think and talk in full paragraphs and pages, and it was always
dense, persuasive, erudite.... and correct, technically and
grammatically. He didn't often have time to review my stuff, but when he
did so, my game went up a notch, for a while thereafter.
Kevin
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer without copying
or disclosing it.
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-