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.
when people ask me whether I'm an expert in a given
subject, I usually say "no, but I'm an expert at
I consider, as a technical writer, that one of my
major strengths is that I know how to ask questions...
and how to listen to the answers.
I think I'm a third type of writer than the two that
Bruce proposes.. I may not be an expert in subject x
by the time I'm finished writing about it, but you
couldn't always tell that by reading what I've
What I *do* think I need to know is enough about the
subject to be able to find the right structure for the
information... how best to present it. After that, to
me, the rest is just filling in the details. Whenever
I have problems writing about something, I know it's
because the proposed structure of the manual (or
section, or paragraph) isn't right, doesn't accurately
reflect the subject.
on the other hand, "God is in the details."
--- Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com> wrote:
> Maybe the point to make is: it doesn't matter how or
> when you
> learn what you're writing about, so long as know the
> subject by
> the time you finish the manual.
> Fortunately, there's an alternative: writers who
> have the ability
> to learn quickly.