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: The Real Offense From:"Angela Pollak" <angela -dot- pollak -at- sybase -dot- com> To:techwr-l Date:Thu, 9 Mar 2000 14:58:56 -0500
tsk tsk tsk... didn't no one never tell ya that ya gotta _know_ the rules
afore ya can _break_ 'em & still look smart?
Besides, if all it took to be a good technical communicator was to be an
SME, most of us would be out of a job. It's the writing/communication theory
that makes us different (and more qualified to write) than the SMEs in most
(BTW... haven't you folks heard of co-op education? It mingles theory with
practice... the best of both worlds!)
<DowningLst -at- aol -dot- com> wrote in message news:39218 -at- techwr-l -dot- -dot- -dot-
A few days ago, Andrew Plato lamented the way that some tech writers .
<<Rather than actually writing, obsess over HOW to write (structure,
format, organize, etc.) Rather than struggle to understand a complex
worry about HOW to organize the pitiful information available into a system
that LOOKS like you understand.
It is the ultimate employment procrastination defense - rather than be
effective, worry and TALK about being effective. In the process - nothing
useful is accomplished except FEELING like something important was done.>>
I agree that lots of writer are guilty of anguishing over theory,
methodology, and technique, at the expense of getting their work done. I've
even committed that offense a number of times. However, Andrew seemed to be
accusing these folks of knowingly and deliberately aggrandizing themselves
at the expense of whatever job needs to be done. I think it more likely
that these folks went through some type of academic training program, and
have yet to learn that the demands of a real-world job are different than
those of the classroom In a classroom, you're supposed to examine theories,
methods, etc., while in the real world, you're supposed to get the job done
ASAP. The writers Andrew complains about may simply be laboring under a
mistaken impression of what is the right thing to do.
(If you respond and want me to see it immediately, your best bet is to send
or copy it off-list to DavidDowning -at- users -dot- com)