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.
RE: Being an Expert (or at least knowing enough to question one...)
Subject:RE: Being an Expert (or at least knowing enough to question one...) From:Charles E Vermette <cvermette -at- juno -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:47:42 -0400
John Posada relates the following:
<<<Case in point. I'm writing some business rules for manipulating data
and system messages. I know very little about the system..though much
more since Monday last week. However, yesterday, I asked why, based on a
pattern of matches, in all cases except one, a string of numbers was 01,
09, 12, 20, and 90-99, but in one case, it was coded 00 instead of 01...
Turns out that this tiny little error was responsible for a VERY large
series of error messages that nobody could understand. To me, it was
almost trivial...to them, a biggee....apparently, I justified my rate for
the rest of the year...>>>
And when you catch something like this, you find all of a sudden you have
no problem getting respect - or more importantly, access to the
infomration you need when you need it.
My equivalent to John's story...
My first real TW job was writing a manual for a software utility that
controlled hardware operations. I was given a box that simulated the
reaction of the unit...when the box clicked on/off, I knew the procedure
and/or routine was working correctly...
Part of the doc involved command line coding in a language similar to the
BASIC I used in the early 80s on my PC-JR. I became suspicious when I
found there was no type checking of the variables. To make a long story
* I found a VERY serious error in one of the standard routines. On
demonstrating it, the lead programmer and sales engineer went white (with
fear, embarrassment or both) and stuttered "Thank you Chuck..."
* I later suggested to the lead that they set up a Certification Program
and have only *those* folks write the routines (or bullet proof the code
so that novices couldn't make serious errors...)
* Based on the little coding I knew, I was able to add a section to the
document on good coding practice, and modifying/importing existing code.
You wouldn't think that the Structured Programming principles and BASIC
code I learned in the early 1980's would come to my aid fifteen years
Save up to 50% with RoboHelp Deluxe. Get 2 great products for 1 low price!
You'll get RoboHelp Office PLUS RoboDemo, the software demonstration tool
that everyone's been talking about. Check it out and save! http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
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.