Re: So now we are content engineers?

Subject: Re: So now we are content engineers?
From: Gene Kim-Eng <techwr -at- genek -dot- com>
To: Chris Despopoulos <despopoulos_chriss -at- yahoo -dot- com>, "techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 07:06:59 -0800

The big problem I have with this article - and with the Wikipedia article - is the definition of "content." They're not talking about identifying and collecting information about the product for accuracy and suitability for use, but about the design and execution of the deliverable. I could see calling that "format engineering," or "document engineering," especially since today's OLH and embedded instructions often require a lot of programming-like skills, but it's not what I would call "content."

These articles represent what I consider a basic flaw in many technical writers' priorities: spending too much time on formatting and delivering information and not enough time on making sure it's the right information.

Gene Kim-Eng



On 11/7/2013 1:38 AM, Chris Despopoulos wrote:

Interesting... Last I looked, the title was "EYE am a content engineer", not YOU. Not everybody in the biz does engineering, nor should they. But some should. There is engineering to be done with content.

BTW, Wikipedia has a page dated 2010 that tries to define content engineering.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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: So now we are content engineers?: From: Chris Despopoulos

Previous by Author: Re: So now we are content engineers?
Next by Author: Re: Footnotes - acceptable in technical documentation?
Previous by Thread: Re: So now we are content engineers?
Next by Thread: Re: So now we are content engineers?


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads