Re: Certification

Subject: Re: Certification
From: Misti Delaney <mdelaney -at- SOFTWARE-SERVICES -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 11:53:16 -0400

I know that Doc To Help offers specific Doc To Help developer
certification -- a part of the evaluation covers how well written and
usable a document is, not just how many fancy tricks you know how to do
with the tool.

In my opinion this is a much more useful certification tactic.
*******************************************************************
Misti Delaney (Tucker)

Technical Consultant/ Communication Specialist
Software Services Corporation
Ann Arbor, Michigan
(800) 448-1568

*******************************************************************
My opinions do not in any way represent those of my employer.

>----------
>From: Dennis Meier[SMTP:boisemeier -at- EXECU -dot- NET]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 1996 11:23 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list TECHWR-L
>Subject: Re: Certification

>While I think that certification of technical communicators may be the
>best
>way to increase respect for the profession (and, thereby,
>compensation), I
>agree with those who feel that the engineering certification process is
>not
>a path that TComm should follow. Like many other engineers who work in
>a
>specialized area (nuclear, in my case), I did not seek the P.E because
>in my
>opinion, and in the opinions of most of my peers at the time, the value
>of
>certification seemed negligible. I am not even sure if there was nuke
>certification then; taking the exam for mechanical engineering would
>have
>added little value to my job at a national lab.

>This is, of course, the problem with trying to certify a profession
>that is
>rapidly evolving: the certification process tends to lag behind the
>changes
>in the profession. Unless the certification is current--and that is
>virtually impossible with broad certification of dynamic
>disciplines--it is
>meaningless.

>Rather than looking at the engineering model for professional
>certification,
>which attempts to certify a broad discipline, I think TComm should,
>instead,
>look at certifying specialties in a manner similar to how software
>companies
>certify developers. The model used by, say, Novell, to certify CNAs and
>CNEs, seems to make much more sense. Can we not, withing TComm, define
>specialties which can be certified?
>For example, there could be a certification process for HTML 2.0, HTML
>3.2,
>etc. Perhaps this kind of speciality certification already exists, I
>don't
>know one way or the other, but it seems much more feasible, and
>realistic,
>than broad certification of the entire TComm profession.

>Dennis Meier, owner
>2(DM)
>Technical Communications Consulting

> TECHWR-L List Information
>To send a message about technical communication to 2500+ list readers,
>E-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send administrative commands
> ALL other questions or problems concerning the list
> should go to the listowner, Eric Ray, at ejray -at- ionet -dot- net -dot-




TECHWR-L List Information
To send a message about technical communication to 2500+ list readers,
E-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send administrative commands
ALL other questions or problems concerning the list
should go to the listowner, Eric Ray, at ejray -at- ionet -dot- net -dot-



Previous by Author: Re: "It Ain't Literature, Y'know" (#740579)
Next by Author: Re: Noon
Previous by Thread: Re: Certification
Next by Thread: Re: Switching from Word to FrameMaker


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads