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: Non-technical, Technical Writers From:"Amy G. Peacock" <apeacock -at- WOLFENET -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 6 May 1998 15:40:37 -0700
Thanks Tim for giving me the "in" to voice a thought on all
Tim brings up a good point here. As a self-proclaimed newbie I have
definitely felt a leaning towards 'pick the right tool and you'll
be all right.' Not that I am not extremely grateful for all the info
people have given me, because I am.
However, the more I get into my job and the more people ask me to
do (where does it all end?) the more I notice that I don't have the
basic knowledge/skill/principles to really take me somewhere in this
field. Some may say that I should quit and come back when I've got
a degree or more knowledge about the field in general. They may be
right, but I'm not going to do it. For me, I am having a great time
trying to combine 'learning' with 'doing'. Does it overwhelm me? You
betcha! Do I consider myself the technical type? Nope. Where my
interest lies is in helping the user - being a mentor on paper if you
I don't *want* to be like Tim's 'baby bird.' But I have been pushed
into that role by my circumstances. There's got to be another way. I
think the idea of mentoring is a great idea.(Any takers in the Seattle
area?) There are so many ways to learn - we should take advantage of
apeacock -at- wolfenet -dot- com
On Wed, 6 May 1998, Tim Altom wrote:
> Sadly, what this mindset has led to is a cadre of communicators who aren't
> very well versed in fundamentals, preferring to substitute the experience of
> the tool vendor for their own hard work in learning what they should know.
> We see the unfortunate results here on this list, with common questions
> about "Such-and-So miracle tool won't compile my help file. It says
> something about a graphics problem. What's wrong?", a problem that anyone
> who knows the subject well could correct in a matter of minutes.
> We're doing both the profession and the newcomer a disservice, I think.
> We're allowing a generation to develop that sits like baby birds with their
> mouths open, hoping that some newer tool will make their lives easy and
> productive. Many buy PageMaker, but never learn the layout principles that
> have been developed over centuries. They buy PhotoShop, but don't know what
> bitmapped graphics are like. They buy RoboHelp, but don't even know that the
> help compiler is identical for every tool. Many newbies don't even know
> there *are* such fundamentals to learn. Nobody's told them. All they have is
> the mailings from the tool vendors, who never let on that they're hiding
> fundamentals, not teaching them.
> Tim Altom
> Simply Written, Inc.
> Creators of the Clustar Method for task-based documentation