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: What is More Important? From:"Kathleen MacDowell" <kathleen -at- writefortheuser -dot- com> To:"Janice Gelb" <Janice -dot- Gelb -at- sun -dot- com> Date:Tue, 15 May 2007 22:27:33 -0500
don't think it's quite so easy to split technically accurate away from
mediocre writing. There's no doubt that the accuracy is necessary. But a
misplaced comma can provide erroneous instructions, just as using the wrong
article could. But, if the product isn't hazardous in some way,
poor instructions (accuracy- or writing-wise) are primarily frustrating.
I suspect that many of you are unconsciously thinking of content that the
reader has a background in, if you think that poor punctuation, etc. is less
important than technical accuracy.
If I have a background and something is puzzling or doesn't quite work
(because of the effects of punctuation, etc. errors), I might be able to
work the problem out. If I'm a beginner, I wouldn't have a clue where the
problem was.
On 5/15/07, Janice Gelb <Janice -dot- Gelb -at- sun -dot- com> wrote:
>
> Gene Kim-Eng wrote:
> > I suspect that the standards most people on this list would require to
> > call something "well written" are considerably higher than what the
> > average user (and even some above-average users) would. So
> > "well written" as it applies to style of grammar, spelling, punctuation,
> > style, etc., is a fairly rubber standard. On the technical side, there
> is
> > usually not so much flexibility. Wrong is just wrong. You will most
> > likely not get very many user complaints if there are a few spelling
> > or punctuation errors, but if you give someone an instruction that
> > causes something to crash or explode when it isn't supposed to,
> > you can probably count on something nasty hitting a fan somewhere.
> >
>
> Then there's somewhere in between: what about
> a missing explanation that would cause users not
> to make a common mistake while using the product
> in a certain way? Leaving it out doesn't make
> the documentation technically inaccurate but
> it could cause the reader to use the product
> incorrectly. Or explanations that are worded
> so ambiguously or in such a convoluted way that
> they don't convey the information in a usable
> way even if they're technically accurate?
>
> -- Janice
>
>
> --
> Kathleen MacDowell
> www.writefortheuser.com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
Now shipping: Help & Manual 4 with RoboHelp(r) import! New editor,
full Unicode support. Create help files, web-based help and PDF in up
to 106 languages with Help & Manual: http://www.helpandmanual.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
