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: Job Titles for TechComm People From:Andrew Plato <aplato -at- EASYSTREET -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:36:15 -0800
>In the same vein as my previous
question, would you say these people >were all "technical
communicators"? >Product Specialist
To some extent, YES.
>*Product manager
Good Lord, NO! >*Client
Advocate
NO
>*Communications Specialist
YES
>*Information Designer
YES
>*User Assistance Engineer (or
similar)
NO
>*Product Information Analyst
NO
>*Usability Specialist
NO< NO, NO -- technical communications is NOT about
usability. It is about describing how to use things -- not how those
things could be better designed for easier use. That is what a usability
specialist does.
>*Instuctional Designer
YES
>*Senior Information Designer
YES
>*Director of Technical
Information
YES
>*Human Factors Professional
NO
>*Human Factors Engineer
NO
>*Usability Engineer
NO
>*Utility Infielder
NO
>*Senior Systems Analyst
NO
In my personal, highly biased, likely to irritate,
opinion, technical communications is about COMMUNICATING things that are
technical. The role of the communicator is to clearly explain how
something works, how it is designed, how it is used, what it does, and why it
does what it does. A communicator DOES NOT design the
"something" nor does he/she test how well it works. Quality
control people and usability engineers should do that job. While many
engineering groups allow tech writers to have some input to the usability of a
product, I do not think a writer should assume that role from day one. It
must be "earned" through developing good feedback mechanisms with
engineers, scientists, analysis, and quality control people.
I have worked with numerous writers who use their
opinion that a product is poorly designed as an excuse not to write
documentation. I always want to bitch-smack these people and yell at them:
"HEY! It is not your friggin' job to decide how well the product is
engineered. Last time I checked, ENGINEER was not in your title, but
WRITER was. SO WRITE SOMETHING AND QUIT PRETENDING TO BE AN
ENGINEER!"
Likewise, a lot of writers get obsessed with
usability. This is one of those "earned" roles a writer
gets. Only after demonstrating that you have a brain are you allowed to
make recommendations on usability. Moreover, it is just that --
recommendations. I can't tell you how many times I have seen writers
obsess over usability issues and ignore their primary job -- writing
documents.
Obviously every organization is unique. Some
organizations encourage writers to participate in usability and other such
functions. This is usually a good idea. Everyone should be involved
in these issues. But, the reality is, a lot of engineers have titanic egos
and they are not about to take one ounce of advice from a lowly technical
writer. Therefore, writers should not assume they are the "customer
advocate" or the "usability engineer". Writers are meant to
WRITE documents.