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: Reading a draft for content only From:"David Blyth @second" <dsb -at- ALSYS -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 9 Feb 1995 13:37:16 PST
Vince Putnam said...
>Many TECHWR-L posts have stated that the Technical Writer is the
>author. This attitude is no doubt coming from the enormous amount of
>effort we TechWriters put into the formatting, graphics, and digging
>for the missing info. Why then should the content person take credit
>as the author?
I take credit as the author when I really am the author. That is, my
work often requires I write the original draft of the entire document.
I also research missing info, do the formatting, design the graphics,
and develop my own tables. I even run the spell checker.
When I want a review for content only, I really want a review for content
only. This doesn't mean that I won't fix other errors. It just means
that I don't want the reviewer to _focus_ on grammar and spelling.
In general, I want the reviewer to answer these questions, in this order:
1) Am I telling the truth? (Is the content accurate?)
2) Am I telling the whole truth? (Is any content missing?)
3) Am I telling nothing but the truth? (Did I say something unnecessary?)
And as soon as I run the company, everything will work perfectly... ;)
But I'm sure other Tech Writers feel much the same way.
David (The Man) Blyth (dsb -at- thomsoft -dot- com)
Thomson Software Products
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer (but they should be).