Re: certification redux

[JIMCHEVAL -at- AOL -dot- COM]

In a message dated 97-06-16 11:44:46 EDT, pbrown -at- mks -dot- com (Peter Brown)
writes:

<< It's also an extension of the time-worn squawk from techie programmer
 and engineer types about how they are just so dang smart as a species
 that they can do pretty much anything they put their minds to, up to and
 possibly including brain surgery.
<snip>
 The reason we call ourselves writers is that first we must be able to
 write >>
I've stood pretty clear of this whole thing because, frankly, whatever the
outcome, I don't think it will have much practical effect in most places.
 I'd worked in technical writing for several years before I even knew there
were people who had degrees in it.  Still haven't met any on a project,
though I do see SOME (not many) ads that require it.

I'm 'certified' by the way (in France) as an analyst. It would have given my
boss a hearty chuckle if I'd try to use that as any kind of credential.  He
wanted a certain kind of intelligence and commitment above all, and some
understanding of the basic terms.

I think it's important to bear in mind that 'technical writing' covers a
great spectrum of skills and projects.  I can imagine that in some cases
technical understanding is more important than straight writing skills.
 Certainly, some of the electronics projects I've seen mentioned here require
a specific technical knowledge (but would that be guaranteed by
certification?).

When I documented a FoxPro application in detail, my understanding of code
was far more important than my writing skills (active and passive voice don't
make much difference when you're listing program modules.)  On the other
hand, my work on bank procedures was more like editing.  Certainly it
required no 'technical' knowledge in the usual sense and in fact I still have
a limited understanding of banking per se.  But I know how to make something
readable.  Not because of any technical experience or even (really) lit
degree.  Simply because I've read voraciously since I was a child.

The down side to people with a strong technical background has been discussed
here before.  In the worst cases, it leads to a certain inflexibility of
thought.  *Maybe* a certification program could rectify that.  Personally, I
think it's a matter of working with users and seeing what they really want.

Linking this with the 'Experience and Ability' post, I think so many
technologies and methodologies are in flux today that the ability to learn on
the fly is the most important talent a programmer or a writer can have.  I
doubt any course can teach that, or assure a future employer that someone
possesses that ability.

As far as the survey debate goes though, I've had trouble taking it
seriously, simply because, whatever the outcome in the organization(s)
involved, I don't think the market cares.

Jim Chevallier
Los Angeles
PS - I DO think however some of the more personal comments towards the
original poster could have been avoided.
=======================================================
Visit Chez Jim: Jim Chevallier's Home Page - http://www.gis.net/~jimcheval
=======================================================

 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