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: QA Techniques in Writing and Production From:David Locke <dlocke -at- PHOENIX -dot- NET> Date:Wed, 5 Mar 1997 00:05:06 -0600
M. David Orr writes:
>>* Screen prospective employees carefully to eliminate sloppy writers
>>* Train existing writers in quality principles
>>* Train existing writers in writing skills
To which Robert Plamondon replied:
>I'm curious as to how you deal with the first bullet item. <snip>
I once worked with an analyst/futurist that was hired to do some technical
writing. I had no influence in the hiring decision. He knew the source
language intimately. The first time I was his writing, I re-estimated the
job, because I expected a more professional TW. As I edited his work, he
learned my expectations and exceeded them. He demonstrated the ability to
LEARN and CARE about his writing. He was a professional.
Copyeditor redlines can be used to move responsibility from the writer, or
to train the writer to improve. In a TQM environment, QC finds defects and
QA learns from them. I would expect that my writers learn from their
mistakes. That is Demming. Mistakes are ok as long as the lessons are not
ignored. Continuing to make the same mistakes is a sign of irresponsibility
and lack of professionalism. The absense of mistakes is NOT a measure of
How do you find TWs like that?
locke -at- phoenix -dot- net