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 agree with the spirit of your rant, but not its recommended
> implementation. Tools and their efficient use have to be a part of the
> Tech Writing Curriculum. It does not have to be the end-all cure-all of
> that program, but cannot be ignored, either.
Tools are not the problem. People who understand complex systems and can
reason out problems will be able to master any tool.
> The problem is that documentation creation is only one part of the tech
> writer's job. Another big part of our job are three buzzwords (that are
> also on Andrew's bad list): "maintainability", "single-sourcing", and
> "re-purposing" of text. If discipline in tool usage is taught, these
> goals can be easier to obtain.
NO they can't. You end up with process and tool crazed flakes who spend
99.9% of their time jabbering about how they need to more efficiently
leverage their tool synergies to build best-of-breed single-sourcing
maintainability. All their jabbering amounts to esoteric, exotic, and
cumbersome "feel-good" processes that make them the Belle of the Ball at
the local STC Yearly Convention...But they still cannot produce decent
documentation because the writers STILL don't understand what they are
documenting.
All of these things are incidental. Stuff you scrape off the bottom of
your shoe in between lunch breaks. Non-issues that should consume a
fraction of a writer's time and attention.
> You name the subject matter and an argument can be made that you can
> learn everything you need to know and more with a self-study program.
> ("Go play with the tool.") This seems to be Andrew's point.
No not exactly. My point is that there is an exceedingly large
overemphasis in the tech writing world on tools. This overemphasis is so
pervasive that it has universities wondering if they should teach such
tools. I agree with those professors that say they don't want to become
DeVry Tech. They shouldn't. Tools change from year to year. Knowledge of
how to reason out a problem does not.
Moreover, there is intense and widespread misinformation and obsessive
behavior surrounding tools. There are people out there that honestly
believe they are accomplished, senior level writers MERELY because they
can use FrameMaker. These people exist and are being given positions of
authority because of this absurd and illogical devotion to tools.
The tool does not make the master.
> I think that effective tool use should be taught early on in the program
> and then expected in all future course work.
I don't think it should be taught at all. English 101 was not a course in
using a word processor. I see no difference for tech writing programs. A
good tech writing program should focus on theoretical information and
developing basic skills like logic, researching, analysis, and scientific
theory, math, physics, etc. Getting a college degree or certification
should mean something more intellectual than "can you point and click and
apply a style."
> We have tools because they make our work easier. Not to teach the tools
> means that we forever are doing things the hard way; it means forever
> being closed-minded about the work, because we never were exposed to
> (and forced to understand) what could be done.
Wrong. You have the argument backwards Glenn. Not teaching tools forces
people to learn how to do the job FIRST. So that the tool becomes an
outgrowth of their capability - not the other way around.
*Anybody* can use Word or Frame to spit out text. Only an intelligent
rational human can use said tool to actually make something of value.
Let me put it another way, do we call the guy in the street who swings a
hammer an architect because he can pound nails nicely? Or do we call him a
carpenter and pay him 1/9th as much?
Do we call a person a writer because they can click menus in Frame faster
than you? OR do we call a person a writer because they plant their big ass
down and put words together to construct a compelling document?
Please, flame among yourself. I have a busy week of hacking people's
computers.
Andrew Plato
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com
Collect Royalties, Not Rejection Letters! Tell us your rejection story when you
submit your manuscript to iUniverse Nov. 6 -Dec. 15 and get five free copies of
your book. What are you waiting for? http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr
Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
