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.
I admit that I am a harsh critic of the theory-crap that a lot
of writers do. I
also admit to over-generalizing many writers as deliberately
trying to do this.
However, I feel this is a fundamental flaw in the entire tech
profession. One that is dramatically hurting the profession in
ways most people
do not ever address.
I find that I rely heavily on analysis and methods learned in
post-secondary, but real world writing forces those skills to
function in the background (kind of like metadata on a network). The
reality of high tech is that there are a a plethora of
reasons methods don't work (not just in writing, but in lots of other
areas too, such as product or network
tend to be linear
usually show activities as only occurring once (I revise my
docs recursively and constantly)
are often prescriptive
usually don't distinguish between size or complexity of doc
often mix various project elements that should be kept
separate, such as project management,
design, development (ie waterfall design is not an
don't distinguish between operation/functional and conceptual
All the above concerns aside, I would never consider banging out a
document until I had figured out:
who the audience is
how the doc will be used
what are the goals of the doc
the physical environment where the doc will be used
everything and more about the technology
write the damn doc (i realize this list is not parallel)
IMHO that's a method
From the responses to this original post, it seems that there are some
decisively divided camps on this issue.....
personally, I find myself torn between the two stances, which seem to
pit methodology against technology. I think both
are necessary, though I agree 100% with Andrew when he says:
For example - I think ALL tech writers in the computer
industry should be
forced at gunpoint to take a C++ and SQL class (or something
who know how programs are written and databases are used are
1000 times more
qualified to write about those things.
Mostly, I find it appalling that some writers will go to
lengths to defend their ignorance as if they have a right to
be paid and
admired for stupidity.