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.
For some reason today, I'm interested in reaching a consensus on the use of
the word "documentation". It parallels the term "information developer", in
that it's sometimes legitimate but kinda new-speak or managese.
for immediate example:
>similar statements in documentation and we/I may be
I had, not 5 minutes earlier, looked up the word in the dictionary because I
was about to use it when telling a user to look up some information in a
third-party manual. It seems the most legitimate use of the word
"documentation" would be in a scenario such as this:
Mr. Green: "But I just came back from a trip to Venezuela and I brought that
pottery in my luggage"
Officer Black: "It appears to be a relic and of considerable value. The
Venezuelan government would probably not part with it easily. Do you have
documentation supporting its legitimate purchase and export?"
In other words, documentation has a historical significance or it is used as
source material, but not necessarily a body of work intended to convey
context and meaning. Or something like that.
Anyway, I think I'd rather be called the Publications Department. I also
will commit myself to using Manual, Document (without the "-ation"), File,
etc.
Wow, I feel like I'm either wasting time or policing my own use of language.
