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: Typoz in Resumes From:Jim Purcell <jimpur -at- MICROSOFT -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:41:51 -0800
Carolyn Haley protests:
>>Funny, I always thought that part of being a writer was knowing how to
>>spell and use basic grammar, and punctuation. When did that change? Or was
>>it never true?
>How does this requirement translate to "perfection or else"?
>>You can make this into a commercial question as well. I understand that, in
>>general, writers earn more than copyeditors and proofreaders. But if that's
>>true, why aren't writers required to have a higher skill level than the
>>people who are supporting them? Are not spelling, grammar, and punctuation
>>the _base skills_ of the writing/editing trade, required of everyone making
>>a living in that trade? So why should writers be exempt?
>Writers earn more than copyeditors because writing is a higher skill. Writers
>have to understand the content well enough to construct a narrative, to
>analyze an audience and its needs, to make judgments about what (and where
>and how) to say and what not to say. The lucky few have developmental editors
>to help them; most don't. In paying attention to the big picture, they are
>apt to miss a few details. You wouldn't hire a writer who couldn't spell,
>write grammatically, or punctuate correctly, but it is not the writer's job
>to put the copyeditor out of work.
>>A copyeditor is needed to check and clarify a writer's writing, not to
>>compensate for a writer's technical inability. And a proofreader is needed
>>to make sure that the layers and layers of revision and formatting are all
>>in place and correct. All of these parties need to know spelling, grammer,
>>and punctuation, as well as more sophisticated elements of the language.
>>The closer you are to a project, the less clearly you can see it. The
>>writing-editing-proofreading sequence is a proven quality control method.
>>But the functions are not totally separate; they merely indicate areas of
>>focus and responsibility.
>I don't think anybody can argue with this, but it would seem to undermine a
>requirement for perfection in writers.
>>I would never hire a writer, editor, or proofreader (or word processor,
>>typesetter, desktop publisher) who submitted a resume with even one error
>I will grant that a proofreader should not submit a resume with typos.
>Chasing typos is their whole job, after all.
>>That tells me that the person does not take his/her profession
>This is a gross overreading of an isolated typo. A sloppy resume is
>inexcusable, but if you get a resume and cover letter that reveal a fluid
>writing style, an organization that emphasizes the main points and
>subordinates the supporting ones, and depth of experience in the area you're
>looking for, you would be hurting your own organization to reject it just
>because it contains a typo.
>jimpur -at- microsoft -dot- com
>My opinions, not Microsoft's