Re(4): Slow Tech Writers

Subject: Re(4): Slow Tech Writers
From: Jan Henning <henning -at- r-l -dot- de>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:54:47 +0200

Dear letoured

>>There are slower writers and faster writers. A slower writer going slow is
>>most likely slower than a faster writer going slow, so the distinction even
>>applies to your 'slow, methodical' projects.
>Nonsense. -- It doesn't matter how long someone takes. What matters is the
>accuracy, the rework that is avoided, and how well it works for the customer.

Sorry to have to disagree, but it matters how long it takes to write
documentation. Even where the quality is very important, there is an
amount of time, large though it may be, that is longer acceptable.

>>Also note that "slow" and "methodical" aren't synonymous. [...]
>They are not synonymous in your view because of what?

Are you seriously asking that? You might find the answer in a dictionary,
but here is how I understand the terms:

- Slow: Taking a long time to do something

- Methodical: Rigorously following a method in doing something

It follows that there may be slow, unmethodical work as well as fast,
methodical work.

>Are you equaling slow
>with lazy or bad or what? I never said anything resembling that. Slow can
>also mean requiring a long time. Check your dictionary.

I'm wasn't equating slow with anything besides than "taking a long time".
In particular, I pointed out that slow cannot be equated with methodical.

>>Finally, it is a cliché to assume that slower writers make fewer
errors. This
>>is certainly not what I have experienced. (If anything, I would say that
>>faster writers tend to have a better grasp of the subject matter, but I
>>see a hard correlation between the two.)
>Really? Maybe you aren't very experienced, or have not worked with
>experienced writers.

I did not talk about what I _didn't_ experience but about what I _did_
experience. So your personal attack is not only bad style and uncalled
for, it is also illogical in the context.

>What you people seem to be doing is equating "slow" with a slow writer and
>making that a bad writer. -- I never said that. Equate slow with
careful, and
>you might see the difference.

I don't do htat. I merely pointed out that it is wrong to automatically
equate slow with careful as you seem to have done. If you did not mean to
do so, there does not seem to be an argument.

Jan Henning

Jan Henning
Am Schlossberg 14, D-82547 Eurasburg, Germany

Phone: +49 700 0200 0700, Fax: +49 8179 9307-12
E-Mail: henning -at- r-l -dot- de, Web:

Save $600: Create great-looking Help files and software demos with
RoboHelp Deluxe. Get RoboHelp and RoboDemo - our new demo software - for one
low price. OR Save $100 on RoboHelp Office in June with our mail-in rebate.
Go to

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 for more resources and info.


Re: Re(2): Slow Tech Writers: From: letoured

Previous by Author: Re(2): Slow Tech Writers
Next by Author: Re(6): Slow Tech Writers
Previous by Thread: Re: Re(2): Slow Tech Writers
Next by Thread: Re: Re(4): Slow Tech Writers

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads