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 know that Doc To Help offers specific Doc To Help developer
certification -- a part of the evaluation covers how well written and
usable a document is, not just how many fancy tricks you know how to do
with the tool.
In my opinion this is a much more useful certification tactic.
*******************************************************************
Misti Delaney (Tucker)
Technical Consultant/ Communication Specialist
Software Services Corporation
Ann Arbor, Michigan
(800) 448-1568
*******************************************************************
My opinions do not in any way represent those of my employer.
>----------
>From: Dennis Meier[SMTP:boisemeier -at- EXECU -dot- NET]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 1996 11:23 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list TECHWR-L
>Subject: Re: Certification
>While I think that certification of technical communicators may be the
>best
>way to increase respect for the profession (and, thereby,
>compensation), I
>agree with those who feel that the engineering certification process is
>not
>a path that TComm should follow. Like many other engineers who work in
>a
>specialized area (nuclear, in my case), I did not seek the P.E because
>in my
>opinion, and in the opinions of most of my peers at the time, the value
>of
>certification seemed negligible. I am not even sure if there was nuke
>certification then; taking the exam for mechanical engineering would
>have
>added little value to my job at a national lab.
>This is, of course, the problem with trying to certify a profession
>that is
>rapidly evolving: the certification process tends to lag behind the
>changes
>in the profession. Unless the certification is current--and that is
>virtually impossible with broad certification of dynamic
>disciplines--it is
>meaningless.
>Rather than looking at the engineering model for professional
>certification,
>which attempts to certify a broad discipline, I think TComm should,
>instead,
>look at certifying specialties in a manner similar to how software
>companies
>certify developers. The model used by, say, Novell, to certify CNAs and
>CNEs, seems to make much more sense. Can we not, withing TComm, define
>specialties which can be certified?
>For example, there could be a certification process for HTML 2.0, HTML
>3.2,
>etc. Perhaps this kind of speciality certification already exists, I
>don't
>know one way or the other, but it seems much more feasible, and
>realistic,
>than broad certification of the entire TComm profession.
> TECHWR-L List Information
>To send a message about technical communication to 2500+ list readers,
>E-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send administrative commands
> ALL other questions or problems concerning the list
> should go to the listowner, Eric Ray, at ejray -at- ionet -dot- net -dot-
TECHWR-L List Information
To send a message about technical communication to 2500+ list readers,
E-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send administrative commands
ALL other questions or problems concerning the list
should go to the listowner, Eric Ray, at ejray -at- ionet -dot- net -dot-
