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.
>I think it reinforces Sue's point, that spelling is not among the vital
>components in tech writing.
That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? Who decides what's vital?
You're no good at spelling, and you say it's not important. I'm an excellent
speller, and if I were dictating certification policies, good spelling would
be a requirement.
I'm also proficient at standard English. I'd make that a requirement.
Someone else might find Japanese or French more appropriate.
Fluent speakers of Black English Vernacular might be a lot better at
communicating with some audiences than I am, even if they lack proficiency
in standard English.
How about American Sign Language?
Do we design a certification program that accommodates all of these options,
or do we leave language proficiency out of the requirements entirely? Or do
we say standard English only and let all those other folks fend for themselves?
One reason that many of us feel uneasy about certification is that there
isn't an agreed upon body of core material. If we can't settle on something
as clear cut as language proficiency, what can we agree on? ...RM