Re: Technical Writers vs. Technical Communicators

[sradecki -at- SHERPA -dot- COM]

> I know that the advantage of SGML is that the definition of its elements is
> a structured process, and that furthermore standards are being developed to
> make SGML multimedia, but are we back to being writers and not communicators?
> Can we really setup information using these tools without thought to the final
> format(s)?? Even with an explicit structure?

Ok, I am about to really put my foot in it. At a previous company, I worked
with IBM's BookMaster, which was a GML. I am also familiar with the "concepts"
of SGML (BookMaster is sometimes considered a subset, or relative to an SGML).

I remember being very frustrated at first with the "lack" of control that I had
over the final format of the document. However, after working on a team with
several other writers, I realized that there was something to be gained from the
uniformity that was -forced- through the GML.

I have also done online work, and feel that this would, in some cases, be a
benefit, for the same reasons I stated above- what if you have more than one
person on a project, and a short time line? It seems like having consistency
"preset" so to speak would be a plus, rather than having to go back and make
 sure
all was consistent...

I am not saying that we can forget about the final format. If SGML is anything
like the GML that I worked with, the format could be "tweaked", but did not
*have* to be.  I think that it will be challenging for us, as Technical
Communicators, to meet the standards, and yet still retain that bit of "control"
so to speak, over our documents. I don't think that our jobs, as communicators
is being threatened. I think that we should look on this as an *enhancement* of
our skill set.

That's my thoughts on the subject. Sorry it is so lengthy, I got excited. . .

-September Radecki
Sr. Technical Writer
Sherpa Corporation
sradecki -at- sherpa -dot- com