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: "Gene Kim-Eng" <techwr -at- genek -dot- com>
To: "McLauchlan, Kevin" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com>, <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 07:20:13 -0700

I've had the same experience from SMEs, but then again
I'm not usually technically incorrect either, so we probably
don't represent a usable trend. :)

My first choice for technical review is usually QA for user
and performance info and manufacturing for service info,
unless there are actual service people onboard during
development (in my current company, manufacturing
and service are the same people). Design people are
usually not very good reviewers, except for the theory
of operation/functional description portions of product
docs (I realized this early on watching an engineer
trying to do hands-on work on one of his own designs).

Good marketing people are usually the best source of
non-technical (and often technical) reviews. They know
the customer better than the engineers (who may not
know the customer at all), and usually have enough
technical knowledge to know what the customers need
to know even if they can't verify its accuracy.

Gene Kim-Eng



----- Original Message -----
From: "McLauchlan, Kevin" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com>
>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.

>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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/archive%40web.techwr-l.com


To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info.


References:
Re: RE: old school: From: quills
Re: RE: old school: From: John Hedtke
RE: RE: old school: From: Al Geist
RE: RE: old school: From: John Hedtke
Re: old school: From: Beth Agnew
Re: old school: From: Chris Morton
RE: old school: From: AL Geist
Do TWs need to be formally educated in engineering and science? was, RE: old school: From: Leonard C. Porrello
Re: Do TWs need to be formally educated in engineering and science? was, RE: old school: From: Gene Kim-Eng
RE: Do TWs need to be formally educated in engineering and science?was, RE: old school: From: McLauchlan, Kevin

Previous by Author: Re: paying for docs
Next by Author: Re: Tech Writer Lawsuit; STC position?
Previous by Thread: RE: Do TWs need to be formally educated in engineering and science?was, RE: old school
Next by Thread: Re: Do TWs need to be formally educated in engineering and science? was, RE: old school


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads