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: My Thoughts on Certification From:Tim Altom <taltom -at- IQUEST -dot- NET> Date:Sat, 6 Jan 1996 08:34:00 EST
>I've been following this thread for a while now and I'm quite intrigued.
>Besides my career as a WordSmith, I've also been (and maybe still am) a
>trainer (instructor-based computer training). I'm having a problem
>understanding the necessity of certification.
This is interesting, since trainers are about to become embroiled in a real,
live certification program as we speak. The same company that gives and
grades the SAT is now beta testing a certification program for technical
trainers. It's here. It's live. And it's being taken seriously by those
corporate people who judge us on our merits and sterling past work. Adobe,
for one, has already announced that official trainers who train for Adobe
will have to be certified in Adobe products, and be certified trainers. I've
brought up this fact before, to underscore that if we don't move on our own
program, somebody else probably will. While we debate the merits endlessly,
an associated branch of our profession is already being nailed to the floor.
And logically is it easier to identify the requisite skills for a trainer
than for a tech doc'er? And are they so much more vital and important that
THEY need to be certified, while we don't? I'd like to hear from other
trainers: Did you folks also debate the merits until the issue became moot?