RE: 'Old fashioned' Tech Writers

Subject: RE: 'Old fashioned' Tech Writers
From: Rose -dot- Wilcox -at- aps -dot- com
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 13:08:45 -0700

Leo wrote:

With some amusement I have read the thread about how
the TW profession is going to go through (endure?) a
massive change.

Additionally, how there are companies that now believe
that 'not all features have to be documented' and
there is no need for a manual because no one reads
them anyway.

Perhaps this is the way that software TW'ing is
headed, but I work for a company that manufacturers
medical devices and sells internationally.>>

Regarding the second paragraph, y'all young whippersnappers amuse me.
I've been a technical writer since 1984 and this paragraph describes how
technical writing *was* back then. That *was* old fashioned technical
writing. When I graduated with my degree (in technical writing) in 1984
there were only 2-3 B.S. programs for technical writing in the U.S.A.
When I interviewed with and worked for various software concerns,
manuals were usually second thoughts, created at the tail end of the
development. Due to the commercial pressures that popularizing
computing brought to bear, some but not all development shops, both
external and internal began to change. However, those old fashioned
ideas continued to live on in curmudgeonly managers and developers...
today they are experiencing perhaps a resurgence based on the economic
pressures of our times.

As for me, I like, Leo, am driven in my current job by laws and
regulations. Both Sarbanes-Oxley and the pressure to improve IS
performance are driving process improvements within the IS department
here. I, as the lone technical writer in a process improvement
department, have been detailed to model processes, write work
instructions, create training, and coordinate efforts for such.

Rose A. Wilcox
Center for Process Excellence, CHQ 8th Floor
Rose -dot- Wilcox -at- aps -dot- com

'Fire-fights, bug hunts, big body counts... yeah, I could use a break.'

"MMS <>" made the following annotations.
--- NOTICE ---
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain confidential, privileged or proprietary information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy or printout. Unintended recipients are prohibited from making any other use of this e-mail. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail, we accept no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments, or for any delay or errors or omissions in the contents which result from e-mail transmission.



ROBOHELP X5: Featuring Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author
support, PDF and XML support and much more!

WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT: New! Document review system for Word and FrameMaker
authors. Automatic browser-based drafts with unlimited reviewers. Full
online discussions -- no Web server needed!

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -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.

Previous by Author: Re: Replacing Oracle Tutor
Next by Author: Casewise Corporate Modeler question
Previous by Thread: RE: 'Old fashioned' Tech Writers
Next by Thread: RE: 'Old fashioned' Tech Writers

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

Sponsored Ads