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.
-> Question: Should the writer point out the "un-PC-ness" -- excuse my
-> language -- of either or both of these examples to the development
-> team and/or the management?
->
-> Example 1:
->
-> Should the writer tell the database guy that the database field name
-> needs to be changed because it isn't "Native American"?
This one should be easy to resolve without being obviously "PC", by
substituting "Indian Tribe" with something more relevant to the end
users, for instance "Example_data_field", unless the reference
to "Indian Tribe" is essential to understanding the program, which
didn't seem to be indicated in your example. When defending the choice,
I would not make reference to political correctness, but merely
relevance to the subject matter, so as to make it understandable to a
wider range of customers. I think if you can take the "customer's pov"
rather than a generic "PC" approach, there will be less resistance.
-> Example 2:
->
-> On a "button" in an application used by Field Engineers:
-> "Men/Equipment".
-> Should the writer advise the team that the button name should be
-> changed so as not to discriminate against women?
Workers/Equipment would be my choice here. It's understandable and
"PC-neutral".
Cheers, @DISCLAIMER@
Gwen gwen -dot- barnes -at- mustang -dot- com
MSI * Connecting the world 805-873-2500
