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.
You are dead-on. Mil specs are simply examples, and typically
inconsistent examples. I have seen that sideways bus many time. For
those who haven't had the opportunity to work with mil specs, let it be
known that inconsistency doesn't render a spec ineffective. Mil specs
are loosely bounded areas which are further restricted by agreements
between the parties involved.
Your sample chapter approach is a very good way for the provider and
customer to come to a meeting of the minds on what the spec(s) mean
(i.e., to approve an interpretation).
>----------
>From: Damien Braniff[SMTP:Damien_Braniff -at- PAC -dot- CO -dot- UK]
>Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 1:09 AM
>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject: Re: New slant: professionalism
>
>
>Re MIL Standards. I too have spent several (!) years writing for the
>military (in the UK) and while some of the spec were indeed quite
>stringent
>there were others you could drive a bus through - sideways! This was
>mainly down to how the spec could be interpreted. In the end what we
>did
>was, for each job, produced a "model chapter" basd on the spec and got
>that
>approved. In effect we specified the interpretation of the spec so
>that
>any ambiguity was removed.
>
>A lot of the "bad writing" comes, in part, due to documentation HAVING
>to
>be provided as part of the contract and, as long as it was there, it
>didn't matter wod did it or what it looked like. Thankfully that is
>(has??) changing in most places. Recently, however, I did a brief
>survey of
>local companies about what they thought of documentation - what they
>used,
>who wrote it, how important it was (1=V important, 9=had to have some).
> On
>the whole the replies rated the importance in the region 1-3 but there
>were
>still a couple of 9s in there.
>
>Damien Braniff
>Technical Author
>PAC International
>
>~~~
>/Send commands to listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g., SIGNOFF
>TECHWR-L)
>Find TECHWR-L-related books at
>http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/books.htm
>
>
>
