Re: FWD: Not Wanted--Technical Writers -Reply

Subject: Re: FWD: Not Wanted--Technical Writers -Reply
From: Christine Fedruk <CFED44 -at- CBOT -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:51:47 -0600

> I'm not saying that this is never the technical writer's fault. I
> know it frequently is. But I, for one, am NOT taking the fall for
> this. I used to love this profession. I don't need some 23 year old
> "poet" with a superiority complex to tell me how to do my job. I need
> the busybodies to get the hell out of my way and let me do it.

>>> Tracy Boyington wrote:
I wish you would send this to the Washington Post.
Tracy

<Christine chimes in>
Amen, friends. All the replies have been good, but Anonymous is really
speaking my language today... the Post could really use an
in-the-trenches counterpoint. I hope you do send it!

When I read the article, I couldn't help but think that these radically
"simplified" documents are going to be popular for a while, then the users
will realize that Nora's point is right -- if you cut back too far, you might
change the meaning of the material. And the salespeople will be
confused when the users ask questions, and will end up "wasting" the
engineers' time with questions again, and the engineers will cobble
together some "cheat sheets" for the salespeople, and the salespeople
will want that information added back into their documents (so they don't
have to look in 2 places for info), and around it goes again.

Those of us who have more than a couple years under our belts will just
keep on trying to hit the happy medium. Oy.

Don, thanks for starting this!! ;-)
Christine
Chicago, IL

http://www.documentation.com/, or http://www.dejanews.com/



Previous by Author: Re: Comment--My Best Christmas Present
Next by Author: First day advice. -Reply
Previous by Thread: Re: FWD: Not Wanted--Technical Writers
Next by Thread: Re: Not Wanted--Technical Writers


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads