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.
>
> --- Steven Oppenheimer <writer -at- writemaster -dot- com> wrote:
> > 1. Jobs where a boss or editor grabs a draft off a desk, or off the
> > network drive, before I've told them it's ready -- and then they go
> > ballistic, when in fact they are looking at writing in such a rough
stage
> > that I was not ready to show it to anyone. Their behavior is rude,
> > impulsive, and just plain dumb.
>
> Yes, but its a fact of life in some environments. People will grab your
work and
> see what you're up to. I am not condoning it, just saying its not
surprising.
>
That even a few people are that bad-mannered is surprising to me, but then I
don't expect the worst from people. It is not something that should just be
accepted without discussion. I hope Steve sits down and discusses this
matter with his employer. I'm not suggesting that the employer is likely to
change his behavior, but rather that Steve will have an opportunity to
explain how he saw things and why his document may not have been up to par.
> And you won't make any friends attacking them or raising a fuss. Use a
little
> diplomacy. Shake it off. Forget about it. Rise above pettiness.
>
I doubt that voicing concerns on this list constitutes "raising a fuss", and
I doubt that the poster is being petty. This is hardly a matter to forget
about.
The poster's concerns are valid and I will not pat him on the head, tell him
to go be a good boy, and advise him to not burn down the school.
> > 2. An inability to prioritize flaws in a draft, and -- a closely
related
> > problem -- an inability to see the forest for the trees. ...
> > In short, I had taken their half-baked, disorganized thoughts
> > about their business, and I provided a terrific FIRST DRAFT of the
document
> > that would serve as an excellent foundation for laters drafts, and for
> > planning the running of the business itself. Then one of the
businessmen
> > went ballistic because I has misspelled his name, and also because a
single
> > technical number in the document was mistaken -- both trivial errors,
> > easily corrected with a word processor.
>
> Some people are like that. Its just the nature of any complex endeavor.
People
> miss the 10000 things you did right to focus on the 1 thing you did wrong.
You
> have to learn to take it in stride and diplomatically solve the problem. I
know
> it sucks, but its par for the course in any writing job.
>
No. He needs to talk to his manager about the situation, not ignore it.
There is a difference between being diplomatic and being a doormat. It is
not something that should just be accepted without discussion. I hope Steve
sits down and discusses this matter with his employer. I'm not suggesting
that the employer is likely to change his behavior, but rather that Steve
will have an opportunity to explain how he saw things and why his document
may not have been up to par.
> Moreover, don't fall in love with your words or abilities. You are only as
good
> as your weaknesses.
I think the way we speak to posters here is very important.
>
> > And, I am not at all sure that these errors were mine; I have
yet
> > to review my tape recording of the original meeting, for all I know they
> > may have provided me with the wrong information in the first place. But
> > even if the errors were mine, they were trivial and easily corrected. I
> > have no patience for clients like this. Then again, these guys were
pretty
> > much amateurs, and my main mistake was not seeing that in the first
place,
> > and so agreeing to work for them. So far their business has gone
nowhere,
> > and I suspect that that is where it willl remain.
>
> If you have no patience for customers that demand excellence, then stick
to
> customers than demand substandard work (and pay substandard wages.)
>
I think that misrepresentation of what posters say here is a serious breach
of netiquette in a place where professionals are exchanging ideas. I have no
problem with disagreements, but willfully attempting to twist what a poster
has written is contemptible.
> The fact is, people nit pick these details. And I'm sorry Steve but
misspelling a
> key stake holder's name is the kiss-o-death. It angers people and makes
them
> question your ability. Most people don't like paying somebody to misspell
their
> name.
>
> Next time - GET THE NAMES RIGHT.
Did you miss the part where he said the document was taken without his
knowledge? LOL.
>
> How a writer responds to criticism says a lot about their abilities. And
in
> general, I have found that people who cry foul that they are being
unjustly
> edited are the people who most need harsh editing.
I could never condone unjust editing, and I think only a fool would try to
defend it.
>
> > 3. A good boss -- my definition, of course -- does not mind looking at
a
> > very rough, crude, even sloppy first draft. The purpose is to make sure
> > that the writer is not, in some sense, headed down the wrong path on the
> > project. A capable reader, and a capable manager, can read for the
general
> > direction or sense of things when necessary, as well as reading for
details
> > and fine points when appropriate (generally at a later stage of a
project).
>
> I would agree with that in theory. But some people like to drill in and
nit pick.
> Again, if you respond to this with hostility, then they will probably keep
doing
> it.
>
Some people, such as those who show little empathy for the legitimate
concerns of others, might do that.
> > In any event, I'm always open to constructive feedback and corrections
on
> > my work. But I do appreciate it when the merits of my work are
> > acknowledged and appreciated alongside the necessary and inevitable
> > corrections.
>
> That's not how it works, Steve. You're not up for an academy award. You're
hired
> by people to do a job. And when you do LESS than is expected, there is a
problem
> and that needs to be corrected.
>
I think he said the document was taken without his knowledge. Does that
sound a little familiar?
> > But once again, details are so easy to correct with
> > word processors, I see no reason for readers to get upset over minor,
> > easily corrected errors.
>
> Again, this sounds good in theory, but rarely holds up in practice. If the
errors
> are so easy to fix - then why did you make them in the first place? Don't
make
> those errors again and then you won't have to worry about them nitpicking.
>
He said the document was taken without his knowledge. LOL. Unbelievable!!!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Experience RoboHelp X3! This new RoboHelp release combines single sourcing,
print-quality documentation, conditional text and much more, into the most
monumental release of RoboHelp ever! http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
FrameMaker-to-PDF TimeSavers Assistants let you enhance & automate navigation
in PDF doc sets (chapter tabs, next/prev chapter/pg, bookmarks, popup menus);
create interactive PDF forms, rollover popups; presentations: http://www.microtype.com
---
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.
