Re: "Real" Technical Writers

[Robert Whitehead <rcwhiteh -at- MEDRCW -dot- B17B -dot- INGR -dot- COM>]

In the words of Jacobs Chris <jacobs_chris -at- SMTPMAC -dot- ADS -dot- COM>:

> RE "We feel that the true
> technical writers are left out."

>   Now seems to be as good a time as any to start this debate: what
>   exactly is a "real" technical writer. What, at a minimum, are the
>   necessary descriptors for fitting into that category? What are the
>   exclusionary descriptors.

Please, let's NOT start this; if you remember the fracas over
"professionalism", be warned that this will only be worse.

Look:  technical communication isn't a clearly defined field.  It
isn't limited or specific in its scope.  It is a set of useful
disciplines that one can apply to many different fields of endeavor.
Law schools are suggesting that their undergrads take courses in
technical writing; since a lawyer's only weapons are words, it
behooves a lawyer to be able to make words do what they must do.

I'm proud of the work I do, and I think I do a good job, but I
didn't study technical communication in college.  I didn't even
study much computer science; hell, I have a BS in Business
Administration - tell me how I got into this field!

Let's leave the "real" technical writer discussion off-line, before
it degenerates into heated argument, overblown rhetoric, and bad
jokes about "real" technical writers not eating quiche.
--
\\=============================================================\\
 \\ Robert C. Whitehead       \\ Intergraph Corporation         \\
  \\ Technical Communicator    \\ Mailstop IW17B2                \\
   \\ Mapping Sciences Division \\ Huntsville, Alabama 35894-0001 \\
    \\ Phone: (205) 730-1923     \\ FAX: (205) 730-6750            \\
     \\========= Mailpath: rcwhiteh -at- medrcw -dot- b17b -dot- ingr -dot- com ===========\\