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.
Subject:Re: Engineering & writing From:eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:26:49 -0500
"Chuck Martin" <cm -at- writeforyou -dot- com> wrote on 10/30/2003 02:13:22 PM:
> I wonder if Bill Gates
> would see one of his hats as "software engineer." He
> certainly knows how to
> code, yet he never finished college.
If the discussion is just some ephemeral discussion of what we think of our
jobs, go ahead and think what you want. Developer, or software engineer, it's
still programming. Technical Communicator, Information Engineer, Documentation
Deity, it's all techwriting.
If you need to inflate your title to make yourself seem more self important go
right ahead. If you think title inflation is needed to gain the respect of
others, your effort is misplaced. Do a good job and you'll get all the respect
you need.
If you want people to OFFICIALLY use engineer, then you're opening up the can of
worms of the professional orders coming down hard on you and making the jobs
part of their legally mandated scope. Every so often when the OIQ has little
else to do, I hear whispers of them wanting to swallow up techwriting in any
engineering related company. NOT good news IMO. Do you really want engineers
defining your job description and certification requirements? As was posted by
someone else, programmers are suffering that particular hardship in many
jurisdictions now.
In the Bill Gates example I fail to see why the knowledge of how to code equates
with engineering. Small 'e' engineering perhaps. Big 'E' Engineering certainly
not. It's not just about dictionary definitions. It's about the law. Indeed if
software creation was to fall under big "E" Engineering, Billy G could find
himself forbidden to write software code and having to go to college to learn
all sorts of pointless things to get certified if he ever wanted to write code
again.
But regardless of any coherent arguments for or against, I personally find small
'e' engineering titles to be pompous (those with big 'E" Engineering titles are
often far too pompous over their titles as well IMO&E). The big 'E' Engineering
disciplines already exert the required control in their respective fields over
the techwriters that work in them. Thankfully, that doesn't involve squeezing us
for money at this point in time.
To put it all another way, our documents are to Engineering design and
documentation as a technicians work is to Engineering design and construction.
Yes it's analytical, yes it requires precision and organised thought. But it
ain't Engineering. You don't need the ring or an official seal.
RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for
competitive pricing or download a trial at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l4
---
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.
