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: Personal Quality Standards From:"Tony G. Rocco" <trocco -at- NAVIS -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 16 Oct 1996 09:16:46 -0800
>'tgr' mailed the following letter bomb:
><Brent Jones is making an irrational conclusion by saying that Anna would
><have no personal standards if she doesn't bend over backwards to produce
><the best possible manual even though she isn't being paid for it. This is
><an absolutist and moralistic position. She made a mistake about how much
><time it would take to do a first-rate job with the manual. Live and learn.
><She shouldn't now have to eat her mistake and spend endless unpaid hours
><just to prove to God and the king that she has high standards.
I do get impassioned sometimes, but I don't think I sent a "letter bomb." I
like colorful, impassioned prose, unlike most of the stuff I have to
produce professionally. If the things I say seem hostile, they aren't
really meant to be. Just passionate.
><Moralists be damned.
>I sure didn't read Brent's discussion that way. If Anna made a mistake, she
>can certainly try to talk to her client, but it may come across as more of a
>shakedown than negotiations. When I get an estimate for repairs to my car or
>tv, and then the mechanic comes to me and tells me its going to cost more
>because he made a big mistake, we go talk to a manager next. Anna's
>predicament isn't going to endear her to the client if she just wants more
>The bottom line for me is that Anna made the mistake, so she can either eat
>crow and try to renegotiate, at the risk of damaging her reputation, or she
>can work hard to get the manual where it was supposed to be and eat the
>hours. I'm not sure why, but I can see which direction I'd motate towards --
>hard work, less feathers in the mouth. Besides, she isn't going to be very
>motivated to do better analysis next time if she can wiggle out of it
>painlessly on this go-round. Worse, what kind of reputation do all technical
>writers get when a low bid gets jacked up like this? Same as auto mechanics?