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.
Subject:Re: Purpose of document review process? From:Alexia Prendergast <alexiap -at- SEAGATESOFTWARE -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 12 May 1997 17:19:15 -0400
I went to educate. I took a copy of the short cover
letter I always send out (please review technical
content, not grammar, and so on). I explained that:
-- While comments are always appreciated, what I really
needed was for him to check the technical accuracy of
the docs.
-- Checking for grammar, spelling, etc., isn't
a good use of his time because we have editors that
do that once the book has been tech reviewed and revised.
-- If he had suggestions about the style of the docs,
he was welcome to make suggestions, but that sending an
email would be more effective and less time-consuming than
rewriting each sentence.
Other things that work:
-Asking the developer to justify their remarks (don't
be challenging about it -- won't be productive to get
them defensive) Ernie Tamminga just posted a great example.
-Using humor (helps me develop good partnerships with
my developers)
-Pointing out what's in it for them if they do it the
way you want them to ;)
There's no one-size-fits-all formula. Taking a minute
to understand where folks are coming from (i.e. confused
vs. frustrated vs. well-intentioned vs. obstinate ;) makes
dealing with them easier.
Now, let me add "Amateur Psychologist" to my job title...
A.
--
Alexia Prendergast
Senior Technical Writer
Seagate Software
alexiap -at- sems -dot- com
>----------
>From: Mary Shaw[SMTP:MSHAW -at- MONEYNET -dot- COM]
>Sent: Monday, May 12, 1997 4:36 PM
>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject: Re: Purpose of document review process?
>
>Alexia Prendergast wrote:
>>> That reminds me of the time I had a developer give me NO technical
>comments, but he did take the time to rewrite every darn sentence in
>the passive voice! Hoo-whee, was I cranky ;) <<
>
>So what happened? How did you react? How did said developer take
>your reactions?
>
>I'm always interested in hearing how others deal with developers.
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
