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: Engineering approach to certification From:Damien Braniff <Damien_Braniff -at- PAC -dot- CO -dot- UK> Date:Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:23:59 +0000
You never simply get engineers. Someone may say they are an engineer but
in reality they will be an electronics/electrical/whatever engineer. The
"general" engineer title is to give people a ballpark idea of what they do
- no doubt we all have an idea of what an engineer is (probably based on
those we've known). I feel that it is the same with Tech Writers - the
term provided a general handle on what we do. In the UK (at least with
agencies) this was broadly split into hardware/software. We all have the
basic writing/communication skills and this is what we should be promoting
re certification. From there we can move up in levels if required (as many
as deemed necessary). I have the basic skills + degree in
electronics/programming/ x years experience documenting y and so on.
Even if we have a basic certificate it won't guarantee work. If I'm up for
a job documenting financial software and someone else applying has a
background doing that then I would expect them to be in with a better
chance than me. We all, I would hope, have the same BASIC skills but
beyond that ....
