My thoughts on certification

[Karen Mayer <Karen_Mayer -dot- TOUCH_TECHNOLOGY -at- NOTES -dot- COMPUSERVE -dot- COM>]

  I've been following the certification threads, happily keeping my
  opinions to myself. But what good are they if I don't share? :-)

  My observation is that most of the professions that require certification
  are those in which an unqualified person practicing in that profession
  could potentially cause harm to others: doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.
  Even mechanics could endanger lives if they didn't really know what they
  were doing, perhaps to a lesser extent than doctors, but still.

  Sure, one could argue that many of us technical writers have that
  potential. Should something we write be wrong and cause someone to fry
  themselves on a piece of equipment, they would surely have a case for us
  causing harm. But for the majority of us, I don't think that is the case.
  Many of us document software whose use does not have any harmful
  consequences. Many writers document hazardous materials, and perhaps they
  *should* be certified. But by whom? Why should all writers be subject to
  the same kind of certification if their area of technical expertise poses
  no threat to life and limb? Personally, I do computers. I don't do
  aerospace or chemicals or medical equipment. What I document does not
  have the potential to hurt anyone, and I would object to certification.

  The quality of my work is self-evident and does not require the approval
  of some committee for validation. Those who are interested in pursuing a
  career as a technical writer would have to jump through unnecessary
  hoops. Why not require the same certification for the writer as that
  required for the engineer who designs/builds the thing we document?


  -- karen