RE: SD Times: Tech Writers Should Be Pigs, Not Chickens

Subject: RE: SD Times: Tech Writers Should Be Pigs, Not Chickens
From: "McLauchlan, Kevin" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com>
To: Robert Lauriston <robert -at- lauriston -dot- com>, Tony Chung <tonyc -at- tonychung -dot- ca>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 21:14:59 -0400

Hear-hear!

Also here-here.

When they come from PLM, they are almost always too broad and fuzzy.
Early-on, I would attempt to entreat, cajole, or browbeat the PLM into revising stories that affected me, to make them useful.
It was like pulling teeth to get him/them to pay enough attention to make it work. "Just document it!"

After a while, I switched tactics. I now give 'em either exactly what they asked for (if that can be determined), or my best guess (with or without the use of a dartboard).
Then I submit the resulting doc for review and wait for the squawks.
Either the PLM sees the result and sends the story/issue back to me with notes and clarifications, or the tester goes after him, seeking usable criteria for judging what I've presented... and the PLM sends the story back to me with notes and clarifications.
Based on the text of the complaint/review-suggestion(s), I re-research, rewrite, and re-submit.
Rinse, and repeat.
This is actually less frustrating than trying to get the stories done to a decent standard, up-front.
Over the long haul, I think the new stories are actually improving. I like to think I'm having some effect there. :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Lauriston
Sent: September-06-13 4:22 PM
To: Tony Chung
Cc: Chris Despopoulos; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: Re: SD Times: Tech Writers Should Be Pigs, Not Chickens

In a properly written user story, the acceptance criteria define what needs to be documented.

I think ambiguous / incomplete user stories are the #1 way people do agile wrong.

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Tony Chung <tonyc -at- tonychung -dot- ca> wrote:
> And I guess depending on the quality of the user stories, it may be
> easier to identify the user's desired tasks so that the writer isn't
> writing only reference material.



The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer without copying
or disclosing it.




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
New! Doc-to-Help 2013 features the industry's first HTML5 editor for authoring.

Learn more: http://bit.ly/ZeOZeQ

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

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


Follow-Ups:

References:
RE: SD Times: Tech Writers Should Be Pigs, Not Chickens: From: Chris Despopoulos
RE: SD Times: Tech Writers Should Be Pigs, Not Chickens: From: Kat Kuvinka
Re: SD Times: Tech Writers Should Be Pigs, Not Chickens: From: Tony Chung
Re: SD Times: Tech Writers Should Be Pigs, Not Chickens: From: Robert Lauriston

Previous by Author: RE: TechWhirl: Technical Communication Recap for September 6 2013
Next by Author: RE: SD Times: Tech Writers Should Be Pigs, Not Chickens
Previous by Thread: Re: SD Times: Tech Writers Should Be Pigs, Not Chickens
Next by Thread: RE: SD Times: Tech Writers Should Be Pigs, Not Chickens


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads