Techwhirling ain't a science? Maybe it should be!

["Geoff Hart" <geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca>]

Graham Wyatt asserts that <<Technical writing is not a 
science. Perhaps the difficulty with the introduction of 
standards is that it seems to be an attempt to pretend that it 
is.>>

You made some excellent points. I particularly enjoyed your 
observation that just because just because all caps text is 
slower to read, that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Cool! How 
often we forget to explore the implications of a research result!

The assertion that technical communication isn't a science 
leads me to wonder why not. After all, the definition of 
scientific inquiry is as follows:
1. Based on an existing body of knowledge, form a 
hypothesis.
2. Test that hypothesis under known, (semi-?) controlled 
conditions.
3. Revise that hypothesis if necessary based on the results.
4. Repeat as needed ("replication", "independant 
confirmation", and "iteration").

This seems to be remarkably parallel to the process of 
technical communication:
1. Based on audience analysis, determine which of several 
"best practices" and "standards" should apply to our particular 
audience.
2. Create a document based on the hypotheses in 1 and 
perform usability tests under a variety of (semi-?) controlled 
conditions.
3. Revise the document if necessary based on the results.
4. Repeat as needed ("replication", "independant 
confirmation", and "iteration").

So maybe the problem isn't that technical writing isn't a 
science, but rather that we're not applying the scientific 
methodology we already know we should use? (Clarification: 
By no means do I intend to suggest that we should all call 
ourselves "communications scientists" from this day forward, 
and abandon all freedom and creativity. I just want to point 
out that applying a little rigor to what we do can indeed take 
advantage of the benefits of a more "scientific" approach to 
communication.)

--Geoff Hart @8^{)}  geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca  (Pointe-Claire, Quebec)
"If you can't explain it to an 8-year-old, you don't understand it"--Albert Einstein