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:Re: occupational outlook handbook From:"Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- STARBASECORP -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 13 Dec 1994 17:43:54 -0800
Comments and comments on comments...
> >"Technical writers put scientific and technical information into readily
> >understandable language. They prepare manuals, catalogs, parts lists, and
> >instructional materials used by sales representatives to sell a wide variety
> >of machinery and equipment and by technicians to install, maintain, and
> >service it (U.S . Dept. of Labor 186)."
> >As a technical writer yourself, do you think this statement is true and
> A few quick thoughts on this definition:
> 1. I think that using a catch-all term like "instructional materials," and
> placing said term at the end of the list of things that tech writers prepare,
> is a little misleading. I think that today's tech writer is expected to be
> something of a training expert; almost all of the documentation that I produce
> could be described as "instructional materials," but very little of it could
> classified as "manuals."
The definition also seems to exclude the communication aspects of our jobs that
never make it to paper. I have a hard time finding ways to include online help;
online documentation; and onscreen prompts, messages, and labels in this
> 2. The second sentence emphasizes the use of tech writer-produced materials
> *sell* products, which I think misrepresents our profession. The STC Code for
> Communicators states that we should "satisfy the audience's need for
> information," and unless you view the organization that owns the
> product/process being documented as the most important member of your
> audience--and there may be a good argument for this in some cases--I don't
> think that you should write primarily to satisfy that organization.
I'd be more than happy if the sales force actually used the materials I
produce to sell the product. More often than not, their brochures, ads,
etc are not even "inspired by actual events." I'm sure that none of our
prospective customers get a glimpse of my writing style until after they've
bought the product.
> 3. For some reason, the words "machinery and equipment" don't seem to apply
> software products; maybe it's just me. These words are also inadequate to
> describe any process that isn't related to operating a physical object, such
> the process for developing or improving a business function.
And I agree here as well. "Machinery and equipment" doesn't come close to
describing all that we write about... Software, various training processes,
scientific discoveries... "Machinery and equipment leaves out a lot!!!
> Granted, most of these issues are more concerned with connotation than
> denotation, but they just popped into my head and I had to write 'em down
> *somewhere*. Rebuttals?
StarBase Corp, Irvine CA
sgallagher -at- starbasecorp -dot- com