RE: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication

Subject: RE: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication
From: "Steve Janoff (non-Celgene)" <sjanoff -at- celgene -dot- com>
To: "techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>, Lauren <lauren -at- writeco -dot- net>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 11:06:46 -0700

Great post, Lauren. Very educational. Thanks!

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: On Behalf Of Lauren
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 1:48 PM
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: Re: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication

On 4/6/2012 5:42 AM, Phil wrote:
> Seems to me the semantics of the two terms are clear.
>
> If you primarily write stuff that is technical, you're no doubt best described as a 'technical writer'.

The "technical" in "technical writing" does not and was never used to
describe the subject matter of the writing. "Technical" describes style
of the writing, since what is primarily being conveyed is the technical
aspects of the subject matter, rather than primarily marketing or
business position of the subject matter. "Technical" in "technical
writing" is probably best understood when we recognize that the use of
"technical" in this sense is derived from "technique" and not from
"technology."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technical

> On the hand, if you communicate with audiences using a variety of different media, 'technical communicator' would seem more accurate (or less misleading, whichever emphasis you prefer).

There is nothing misleading about calling the production of the
technical communication in multiple media formats technical writing.
Writing is what produces the content of the various media.

> I feel the term 'technical writing' is a hangover from the days when the text-based medium was more-or-less the only way to communicate technical information (albeit with the occasional diagram or photo thrown in).
> The term 'technical communication' reflects changes in both technology and philosophy - we not only have the means to communicate via different media but also have for some time recognised that other media can be equally effective at getting across technical information to our audience.

"Technical communication" is not a new term, though. Technical writing
has always been a form of technical communication. What is new is that
so many people are confusing "technical" with "technology" and using a
sort of revisionist history to say that technology is the reason for
calling the communication of technology, "technical writing."

There also seems to be some confusion that "writing" must invariably be
words the audience will read, as opposed to content the audience will
see in a slideshow, hear in a speech, or see in a video. If we were to
accept the notion that "writing" can never be used to describe other
media forms, then we would need to reject the use of "writer" in other
disciplines that primarily use media forms that are not read, like
speech writing and script writing.

> I suspect that the reason most professional bodies in our industry are called societies for 'technical communication' rather than societies for 'technical writing' is to reflect the fact that there is now much wider scope for how we deliver technical information to various industries, and that there is a wider skill-set used and required by practitioners aside from being only or primarily 'wordsmiths'.

Here is a slideshow that describes the work of 6th century B.C.
technical writers,
http://news.discovery.com/history/ancient-building-greek-temple-do-it-yourself-photos.html.

The written work predates technology and it does not use printed and
bound media, but it is still technical writing because it describes the
technique for building a structure out of prefabricated building
materials. The instructions are technical communication, but the
production of the instructions is technical writing and not "technical
communicating."

Lauren

*********************************************************
THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENT IS
CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
OR INDIVIDUALS NAMED ABOVE.
If the reader is not the intended recipient, or the
employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please reply to the
sender to notify us of the error and delete the original
message. Thank You.
*********************************************************


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help. Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need.

Try Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.

http://bit.ly/doc-to-help

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives


References:
Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Cardimon, Craig
RE: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Cardimon, Craig
RE: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Dan Goldstein
RE: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Steve Janoff (non-Celgene)
RE: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Cardimon, Craig
RE: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Steve Janoff (non-Celgene)
Re: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Peter Neilson
Re: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Gene Kim-Eng
Re: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Peter Neilson
RE: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Andrew Warren
Re: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Gene Kim-Eng
Re: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Keith Hood
RE: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Cardimon, Craig
Re: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Keith Hood
RE: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Cardimon, Craig
Re: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Phil
Re: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication: From: Lauren

Previous by Author: RE: flare vs authorit
Next by Author: RE: OFF TOPIC - RE: "Allow" vs. "Require"
Previous by Thread: Re: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication
Next by Thread: RE: Post on Technical Writing vs. Technical Communication


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads