[no subject]

From: Carl Grant <cgrant -at- AMEX-TRS -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 10:10:26 -0700

Mary Beth Raven says:
>I don't think most people realize there's
>a lot more to being a "technical writer" than writing, so I call
>myself a technical communicator or something similar.

I guess I approach this from an opposite viewpoint: I try to explain
as simply as I can what I do for a living. Most people I talk
to outside of the work environment don't even know what
a "technical writer" is, so I don't want to make it worse
by saying I'm a "technical communicator." (I'm talking about
outside the work environment here.)

When I first met my wife, she asked me what I
did for a living, and I said "I'm a writer." She was
fairly impressed with that, and I didn't go into the
details of my job until a bit later, when it didn't
matter so much that I was not a glamorous novelist
or a journalist for the New York Times, because by then
she liked me for being me. It's a good thing, too,
because whenever I tell someone else I've just met that
I'm a technical writer, they usually ask, "What's that?"
and don't appear very impressed when I explain. In fact, they
usually complain about some manual they've tried to use
with their computer, in which case I feel obliged to explain about
the difference between good technical writing and bad.

Nowadays, when asked by a layperson, I often just say that
I write computer manuals for a living. Most people understand

Or maybe it *is* better just to say one is a writer. It's clear,
it's direct, it sounds great (smiley face), and it communicates what you do
(in a broad sense). Then go into the details if they ask.

Carl Grant
cgrant -at- amex-trs -dot- com
Phoenix, AZ

Previous by Author: Re: Licensing tech. communicators
Next by Author: [no subject]
Previous by Thread: Re: Red-lining software
Next by Thread: Enough already!

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

Sponsored Ads