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.
I hadn't actually read Steve's comment on that site until just now.
I agree with Tony... Steve your comment was completely inappropriate and unprofessional. Aside from the abusive language and arrogant tone, to start a critique by saying you didn't even read the article past the first sentence... just... wow.
-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+lynne -dot- wright=kronos -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com [mailto:techwr-l-bounces+lynne -dot- wright=kronos -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On Behalf Of Tony Chung
Sent: August-29-16 1:10 PM
To: Steve Hudson <sh1448291904 -at- gmail -dot- com>
Cc: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com; austechwriter -at- freelists -dot- org
Subject: Sickening stuff from Engineers
Steve,
I don't think the comment you made will elicit the level of respect for the technical writing field you hoped to achieve. First, you say "hire a technical writing" instead of either "technical writer" or "technical writing specialist". Next, the bitter tone of your comment will do nothing to improve the public perception of our practitioners as professionals, and will serve to build walls between know-it-all information design blowhards and the other practitioners with whom we desire partnership.
I gained insight from the article in how designers approach type. Engineers like their separate boxes, but designers often suggest uses which require positioning outside the box.
If I have any objection to the piece, it's that using pixels to measure typefaces instead of points suggests that measurements are precise instead of relative. For instance, a font is measured from the top of the ascenders to the bottom of the descenders. Typographers using points understand the baseline could fall anywhere, and will work to align the baselines when different typefaces are mixed. However, the concept of pixels (to me) suggests perfect boxes, even though that won't be the case.
Is there's any reason for the two font usages to measure differently, it's because the baseline and the x-height of the fonts are different. (Font is a specific size and variant of a typeface. That could have been explained too.
But overall, teaching engineers that designers don't position with boxes but use boxes to guide the visible portions of type is not a bad thing at all, and doesn't warrant the type of comment you left.
Regards,
-Tony
On Sunday, 28 August 2016, Steve Hudson <sh1448291904 -at- gmail -dot- com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sh1448291904 -at- gmail -dot- com');>> wrote:
>https://medium.engineering/typography-is-impossible-5872b0c7
> f891#.h6obkxudm
>
> Of course, I couldn't read that without a comment.
>
> To you guys, I will say this. This link contains high macabre comedy
> regarding how an engineer approaches typography. I need medicating
> urgently.
>
> Steve Hudson
> Word Heretic
>
>
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com
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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com
