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.
Agreed. When all else is equal, hire the guy with more tool knowledge. But,
most often, all else isn't equal. And most often, a good tech writer doesn't
get her foot in the door unless she has lots of experience with FrameMaker and
RoboHelp. And, to most employers, it seems, that experience is a no.1
requirement and matters more than writing ability. And I wish we could,
somehow, straighten their priorities. But I think, as Eric says, it ain't
gonna happen.
I just interviewed for a marketing technical writer job. I got the interview
because I taught myself FrontPage. That's a good sign that I got credit for
that. But will I get the job? If so, maybe there's cause for optimism. Beth
Geoff Hart wrote:
> Elizabeth Vollbach wondered <<How can we convince employers who are
> looking to hire a tech writer that their primary concern should not
> be with the software programs a tech writer has experience using?
> that a technical writer is not, primarily, a typist?>>
>
> I guess the same way we convince people to have safe sex, not drink
> excessive amounts of alcohol before driving, save some percentage of
> their income for retirement, and stop smoking: a combination of
> education and blind luck. People (myself included <g>) tend to have a
> great deal of resistance to common sense, and you can generally
> expect that they won't change just because it makes sense for them to
> do so. As the old joke goes, "it only takes one psychiatrist to
> change a light bulb, but the light bulb has to want to change."
>
> Since I enjoy playing devil's advocate >@8^{)}, I'll turn your
> question on its head: _should_ we try to change this attitude?
> Strictly speaking, if I were a manager and I had a choice between a
> candidate who could drop right into my work environment with no
> training and an equally talented candidate who I'd have to train for
> weeks or months, I know which one I'd choose. If I'm in an area where
> there are tons of technical writers looking for relatively few jobs,
> I'd certainly use tool knowledge as one way to cut down on the number
> of people I'd have to interview. That's not fair, but then again, I'd
> be hired to actually produce documentation for a living, not read
> resumes and conduct interviews.
>
> Returning to non-devil mode @8^{)}, I certainly concede validity of
> your point, with one reservation: if I were sitting on the hiring
> side of the desk, I'd be very skeptical of technical writers in
> general, simply because there are so many incredibly bad ones out
> there. Like the bozo who wrote the installation guide for a DOS
> program (from a large, well-respected company) that I unsuccessfully
> tried to install over the weekend. It contained gems such as (paraphrase):
> "Add the following line to your config.sys file: [the path to your
> mouse driver goes here... me, I wouldn't recognize a mouse driver if
> it bit me, but since you're _not_ a techie, you undoubtedly know
> better than I do where it is, and if not, you can always return the
> software]" I kid you not... and the manual was printed in 7-point
> Helvetica with inadequate leading, was organized seemingly randomly,
> and had no troubleshooting section to speak of, which made reading it
> an absolute joy, I can assure you.
> --Geoff Hart @8^{)}
> geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
>
> "Patience comes to those who wait."--Anon.
