Re: New slant: professionalism

[Roger Mallett <roger -at- CSICAL -dot- COM>]

><snip> (from Jane)  How many people have you run
>> >> into who, when you tell them you're a technical writer, laugh about
>> >> "those computer manuals that no one can understand"? Those are the
>> >> legacy of early tech writers who wrote mil specs or who understood
>> >> the technology but failed as communicators. <snip>

><snip> (from Beverly)   Yes, but the broken books
>     >you are fixing were written by yourcontemporaries,
     >not colleagues of long ago. <snip>

Beverly,

I wasn't thinking of books written by my exclusively by my
contemporaries.  I simply feel that legacy earned by writers from long
ago is just as applicable to writers today.  Think about the last time
you read a book concerning a complicated/technical subject (new or old).
 Was it enjoyable?, was it easy to read?, should it have been so?  For
the reading I have in mind when I ask the question, the answers are a
resounding NOs.

To introduce my background, I spent years editing and writing mil-spec
manuals for Rockwell.  While there I wrote the products for various
weapons systems, avionics, aircraft, radio/radar, security, etc.  (and
yes George, what I wrote was absolutely accurate, all errors uncovered
and corrected before val/ver).  I have had my hands deep into the work
of previous writers, fixing, editing, tearing apart, rebuilding, etc.
(some of the writers whose work I put my surgeons knife to were
contemporaries, some gone a decade or more before I came on the scene).


Oh, I have seen the work of those who preceded me, and am thus very
confident that my skill set is highly valued by those who pay me.

As I read what Jane wrote, I feel the reputation that technical writers
have is still well deserved.  But who cares!  I don't personally know
anybody outside of the technical writing world that has a great feeling
about technical writing.  To the normal person (meaning non-tech
writer), it is drudgery to plow through technical material.  Have we as
a profession made it easy for people?  I don't think so.  But again, who
cares!  Some writing is boring because it is so meticulous (especially
defense projects), some is hard to read because it is so technical, and
some is just plain difficult because it wasn't written clearly.

The task of writing can be is very difficult (just ask Elna).  Even so,
why should our feathers get ruffled just because others don't understand
the difficulties associated with our profession, or blame us for all of
the bad writing they have ever seen?  Who Cares?!, not me.  My job is to
solve problem for those who purchase my expertise.  I am not an
evangelist.  People seek me out because they know they have a problem
and have heard from others that I am their cure.  Simple.

Being on the inside of this profession, I get a kick out of it when
others begin to moan and groan about those terrible TWs.  I know what
they have experienced and understand why it happens.

Roger Mallett


>----------
>From:  Parks, Beverly[SMTP:ParksB -at- EMH1 -dot- HQISEC -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL]
>Sent:  Friday, April 24, 1998 10:24 AM
>To:    TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject:       Re: New slant: professionalism
>
>
>Yes, but the broken books you are fixing were written by your
>contemporaries, not colleagues of long ago. The manuals that
>*supposedly* are to blame for the "computer manuals nobody can
>understand" are probably no longer in print and don't need to be--the
>equipment they documented is retired in a museum or scrap heap
>somwhere.
>
>
>Beverly Parks
>parksb -at- emh1 -dot- hqisec -dot- army -dot- mil = http://www.hqisec.army.mil/cis/
>Visit the Friendly Faces of TECHWR-L:
>http://www.bayside.net/users/cbsites/techwr-l/
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roger Mallett [SMTP:roger -at- CSICAL -dot- COM]
>> Fun topic.
>>
>> When asked what kind of work I do, I tell them:  "I am a Technical
>> Writer, you know, the kind of guy that writes computer books, you've
>> seen them, the ones that no one can understand (usually eliciting a
>> chuckle), well I fix those broken books so that you can understand
>> them."
>>
>> This usually brings a sigh of relief followed by a war story or two
>> about how horrible computer/software manuals are and how it's about
>> time
>> that someone got out there and fixed them.
>>
>> >----------
>> >From:  Parks, Beverly[SMTP:ParksB -at- EMH1 -dot- HQISEC -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL]
>> >
>> >> From: Jane Bergen [SMTP:janeber -at- CYBERRAMP -dot- NET]
>> >        <snip> How many people have you run
>> >> into who, when you tell them you're a technical writer, laugh about
>> >> "those computer manuals that no one can understand"? Those are the
>> >> legacy of early tech writers who wrote mil specs or who understood
>> >> the technology but failed as communicators. <snip>
>> >>
>> >        I'm responding to Jane's post, but my comments are not
>> directed
>> >at Jane. The comment Jane made above I have heard over and over again
>> >for years. Frankly, I think it's getting old. Today, when you hear
>> >someone refer to "those computer manuals that no one can understand"
>> it
>> >is extremely unlikely that they are referring to the mainframe
>> manuals
>> >of yore. More likely, they are talking about manuals written within
>> the
>> >last five or six years. I think it is a cop out to continue to blame
>> >the
>> >writer's of old computer manuals for comments being made today.
>> >(Unless,
>> >perhaps, the comment came from someone who hasn't looked at a
>> computer
>> >manual for a dozen years.)
>>
>
>
>~~~
>Find contractor info at
>http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/contractors.htm
>
>