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.
Subject:So, what do you do for a living From:Priscilla Berry <infmx!godzilla!pberry -at- UUNET -dot- UU -dot- NET> Date:Fri, 4 Jun 1993 16:54:00 PDT
As a consultant, I seem to run into this question quite a bit.
Even when I explain to some people what a technical writer is, I still
get the slightly mystified look and "oh, you write those instructions I
can never understand."
I find myself resorting to saying that I'm a non-fiction writer. This
seems to be accepted as a legitimate profession. When asked for further
details, I say that I specialize in writing for the computer industry.
Now they're impressed.
Inside of the industry, the title I like best is Documentation Engineer.
Engineering managers seem to respond to this better. (I must be
something more than an advanced secretary.) 8:>)
g > Mary Beth Raven says:
g > >I don't think most people realize there's
g > >a lot more to being a "technical writer" than writing, so I call
g > >myself a technical communicator or something similar.
g > I guess I approach this from an opposite viewpoint: I try to explain
g > as simply as I can what I do for a living. Most people I talk
g > to outside of the work environment don't even know what
g > a "technical writer" is, so I don't want to make it worse
g > by saying I'm a "technical communicator." (I'm talking about
g > outside the work environment here.)
g > When I first met my wife, she asked me what I
g > did for a living, and I said "I'm a writer." She was
g > fairly impressed with that, and I didn't go into the
g > details of my job until a bit later, when it didn't
g > matter so much that I was not a glamorous novelist
g > or a journalist for the New York Times, because by then
g > she liked me for being me. It's a good thing, too,
g > because whenever I tell someone else I've just met that
g > I'm a technical writer, they usually ask, "What's that?"
g > and don't appear very impressed when I explain. In fact, they
g > usually complain about some manual they've tried to use
g > with their computer, in which case I feel obliged to explain about
g > the difference between good technical writing and bad.
g > Nowadays, when asked by a layperson, I often just say that
g > I write computer manuals for a living. Most people understand
g > that.
g > Or maybe it *is* better just to say one is a writer. It's clear,
g > it's direct, it sounds great (smiley face), and it communicates what you do
g > (in a broad sense). Then go into the details if they ask.
g > Carl Grant
g > cgrant -at- amex-trs -dot- com
g > Phoenix, AZ