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: Writing is a talent From:"W. Michaels" <stinky5 -at- TELEPORT -dot- COM> Date:Sat, 6 May 1995 00:39:34 -0700
>Ed makes a really good point. As one of the posters who got a few
>non-engineer Techwhirlers going on this subject, I guess I should qualify my
>statements. I have had to update far too many manuals done by people who
>thought they didn't need to know (or didn't have time to explore) the
>subject matter very deeply. When I reconsider those experiences, the messes
>were usually created by individuals I wouldn't have put in the top 20% of an
>engineering group OR a writing group.
or "created by" the bloke who hired those screw-ups?
>I know from my own limited experience that with a solid working knowledge of
>engineering disciplines, programming languages and basic machine
>architecture, and other assorted areas, I have been able to produce doco of
>a higher quality than if I did not understand these areas. How do I define
>higher quality? By talking to my clients (internal as well as external)!
>I've got letters and reviews to back that one up.
>Of COURSE there are marvelous writers out there who don't have formal
>training in programming or electrical wiring. But I'll bet that, if the
>truth were known, those really good writers have picked up quite a few of
>the principles in their subject areas along the way. I'll bet they
>understand the products they write about at a level beyond "what you see on
>tamara -dot- peters -at- lawson -dot- com
... this is not a flame ...
I thought your first response to this thread was a joke. Really. You made
assumptions that "good" technical writers write the kind of manuals that
*you* write (apparently some highly specialized something-or-other). I
understand your frustration in being brought into a previously botch-up
assignment. But my experience with this hasn't been a lack of knowledge of
the subject, but a lack of knowledge in basic procedure writing, simple
explanations, and all the other basics involved in tech writing.
I do not have an engineering degree, and I do not need one; nor do I need to
know how to assemble a motor. :) I write software manuals for users with a
sixth grade reading level. They do not need to or want to know the innards
of this software. And neither do I. I understand what the functions control,
and I can explain it simply.
I am trained in technical writing. I know how to use software and know how
to show others how to use it. I wouldn't try to write manuals that require
technical information that I didn't understand. And I would hope an employer
would spot my fraud if I tried!
Technical writing doesn't mean writing only about engineering technology,
many tech writers are in the medical fields or in science. It all depends on
the audience, doesn't it?
I noted the pride you take in your work. I can relate. I take pride in mine
work too. I work very carefully documenting everything I know might occur to
the user. And take care to organize the material in a coherent manner, etc. etc.
... this was not a flame ...
... can we finally put an end to this maddening thread ... ?
"We're about as similar as...two completely dis-similar things... in a pod."
--BA III or GF?