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.
I really think that it was focused on developers and they just left it in.
When I went to get errors and omissions insurance they didn't have a separate category for tech writers. They put them in with developers. I used to have to carry it as a trainer when Blue Sky/eHelp owned RoboHelp but never as a tech writer until my current contract. And because the company I work for makes medical devices, they pushed back on even insuring me at all.
But what I really learned is to read your contracts carefully if you contract on a c2c basis and don't be afraid to push back.
Lin Laurie
206.900.1861
www.linlaurie.com
-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+linlaurie1=hotmail -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com <techwr-l-bounces+linlaurie1=hotmail -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> On Behalf Of Peter Neilson
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 5:37 PM
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: Re: Tips to convert Google Docs into clean HTML?
That "review every page" is hard to push through. Reviewers seem nearly always to want to review only the changes.
Do they do their code that way as well? "We didn't change anything in module B, so the problem caused by the changes in Module A is not my fault, even though I could have caught the incompatible data arrangement if I'd bothered to look at both modules."
Then of course there are the non-SME reviewers who either try to fix the grammar, or else mark the whole thing as "LOOKS GREAT!!"
I'll bet that the requests for error penalties arose from a tendency to hire the cheapest writers available, even if their English-language skills or technical comprehension were beneath sub-optimal.
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 18:56:24 -0400, Lin Sims <ljsims -dot- ml -at- gmail -dot- com> wrote:
> Oh, that sounds like a _truly_ ugly thing to find in a contract. Do
> you get to add language like, "experts are required to review every
> page and sign off on the accuracy before I submit this project"?
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:28 PM Lin Laurie <linlaurie1 -at- hotmail -dot- com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess that point of view cost them a lot of money. I am just
>> fortunate that they didn't try to make me pay for their mistake.
>> There is a new trend out here in Seattle where they want tech writers
>> to sign contracts that include language regarding having them redo
>> mistakes or pay for them.
>> But I
>> was very vocal about how their plan wasn't going to work or if they
>> had someone do it, it might take about 2 1/2-3 months to do just the
>> conversion work. And it wasn't going to be me doing it.
>>
>>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | https://techwhirl.com
Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com
Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | https://techwhirl.com
