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.
Good question, Tony...
> Ask yourself, which of the following is more "real world":
> Company A: A very rigorous analysis was performed on the product's (web
> site's) end-users. And, based upon this analysis, the product's interface
> was designed to be very user friendly. However, the development effort fell
> apart because we simply could not find enough "techies" to implement the
> Company B: We have enough "techies" - everybody here is a techie. But
> nobody really knows (or cares to know) the end-user. As a result, the web
> site is a failure because it does not meet the user's needs and is too hard
> to understand.
I see WAY more Company A's then Company B's. All of Silicon Valley, Portland,
Phoenix, Dallas, and Seattle are Company A's. Now - maybe on the East cost it
is all geeks, but I find that hard to believe.
The world is full to the brim of analysts and people who worry about people.
Yet, there is a terrible shortage of programmers, engineers, and code cutters.
Don't believe me - pick up the latest copies of Red Herring, Upside, Fast
Company etc. Everybody knows, tech skills are in hot demand. I know this first
hand because I own a placement agency. I see hundreds, even thousands of
resumes for people who want to work in the "soft" technical world. For every
100 analysts, we see 1 or 2 good C++ programmers.
Furthermore, as I have said many times before, the "user" is totally irrelevant
if you lack the skills or capabilities to build something that a user can use.
Imagine if Ford or Chrysler decided the number of cupholders in a new car
before designing, building, or testing it. Absurd, right? Cupholders or no
cupholders, if Ford did not have the technical expertise to make cars - it
wouldn't matter whether those cars had 100 cupholders or 1 because they
couldn't build a useful product.
Sure, there is some guy who asks drivers how many cupholder they want. But this
guy makes $34,000 a year and could be replaced by any number of people. But the
guy who engineered the transmission linkage in your 2000 Taurus makes $110,000
a year and there are only a handful of people in the world who could do his/her
Do you see what I mean now? User analysis is EASY and anybody can do it. This
is why companies put little emphasis on it. There is a user-analysis dude on
every corner. Engineers and nerds are much harder to find and therefore a much
more valuable part of a team. This is pure economics, and not a value judgment
on the need of user analysis.
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com