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 have been lurking, for once, on this thread. However, I'd like to make
My company does not request a trip report. However, I always submit one. In
this case, my trip report differs greatly from those I have seen posted here
and from the expectations of Michele's request.
My trip report does not focus on each individual instructor, the details of
each individual session, or even the topics and overviews of the sessions I
took, though I can certainly provide such information. Instead, a pre-trip
report I wrote (again, not requested) noted the sessions I wanted to take,
and why, based on the Proceedings. My post-trip report was much more
general. In my post-trip report, I describe generally where I found my
company to be in terms of publications based on what I observed, learned,
and sought out at the conference. I describe what others are doing and why,
and provide my considerations of what others are doing. I discuss what my
company should do today, what should change and what shouldn't. I suggest
what we ought consider in the near term and predict where my company's
documentation, and the industry as a whole, is headed five plus years from
now, based on what I learned at STC Orlando. For the conference itself, I
make note of the kinds of sessions offered and discuss the overall quality
of instruction and information, with an eye to recommending specific paths
for others from my company (and myself), should we attend in the future.
Finally, I discuss whether the conference itself is worthwhile.
Am I the only one who does not feel the need to report on each individual
Speakers I did like include JoAnn Hackos, Sarah O'Keefe, Ann Rockley,
Phylise Banner, and Doreen Mannion. ?For the most part, I liked these
speakers not only because of the content they provided, but also because of
the way they presented, their presence in leading the class, and/or the way
they fielded on-the-spot questions.
I hope this helps,
sean -at- quodata -dot- com
From: Michele Davis [SMTP:mdavis -at- bitstream -dot- net]
Thanks go to Steve Jong and Janice Gelb for posting their STC
reports. Does any have information about what the speakers they
did that you DID or DID NOT like?