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.
> John Gear writes:
> But I would much rather have two days (or two weeks, or two months, or two
> years) to teach engineers to write than I would to have an equivalent time in
> which to teach writers to engineer. The
> students in the former group would be much further along towards your
> definition of competence than those in the latter would be towards their
> professional engineer certificates.
> John:
> I wrote the letter to which you refer, and that was hardly my point. I
> obviously don't reverse this maxim to state that you could teach me to be an
> engineer. My point was, I repeat, that many journalists can translate their
> skills into technical writing, which is precisely what I did. I don't claim
> to have any engineering knowledge whatsoever, yet I can learn very quickly (wi
> thin a week or two) enough about a complex subject to write coherently about
> in the context of a software program or introductory course matter. And this
> has nothing to do with the competence of one group over the other.
> You write further:
> It doesn't take too long before a technical writer is in a position to learn
> more about the craft
> independently, the hallmark of basic competence. After an equivalent period
> of study the average engineering student is still incapable of tying her
> metaphorical shoes.
> This is precisely my point. A technical writer can pick up technical subject
> matter and continue to grow and develop in this manner with very little
> formal training. Again, I have nothing but respect for what an engineer can
> achieve and the amount of schooling that requires, and the maxim I quoted is
> meant in no way to belittle the obvious intellectual and creative energy that
> good engineers must strive to continuously maintain.
> But...engineers often don't write well. Can you teach them to write better.
> Of course you can. Writing is not impossible to learn, but some do it much
> better than others. So you can't say that just because you can teach someone
> basic grammar, structure, spelling, etc that they will become a good writer
> in the end.
> John goes on to write:
> Perhaps instead of competing with engineers in the "my profession's harder
> than your's" contest we should take a reverse tack and compete on the basis
> of being one of the few that every person--even engineers!--should have a
> basic competence in--and set about providing that competence.
> I was certainly not claiming in quoting this maxim that technical writing is
> "harder" than engineering. Nor was I in any way trying to create a
> competition where none exists. Just because, "it's not rocket science",
> however, does not mean just anyone can walk in and do it. If that were the
> case, we would never see a poorly written or poorly organized manual. I can
> write a complete draft of a manual based on a functional spec and some screen
> dumps. Does this make me better than the engineer who is writing the program?
> Of course not, but it speaks volumes about *my* ability to write.
> I must say you read much more into a little phrase than was ever intended.
> This is not a war or even a battle. In fact, it had absolutely nothing to do
> with engineers, so much as technical writers.
