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: Legal review of documentation From:"Cornett, Guy" <GCORNETT -at- LUMENX -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 7 May 1998 08:46:36 -0500
I'm the poor shmuck that replaced Wendy Lewis more than a year after she
left the industrial x-ray company. When I took the job in January the
company was more than 23 manuals behind. They had several customers
holding back partial payment until they received their manuals.
Sad to say nothing has changed. The only reasons we have a writer now
are customer complaints and the fact that I was downsized out of
engineering. Legal review? I have enough trouble getting the project
engineers to review the manuals.
Guy L. Cornett
gcornett -at- lumenx -dot- com
> From: Wendy Lewis[SMTP:wlewis -at- NCLOGIC -dot- COM]
> Reply To: Wendy Lewis
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 5:17 PM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Re: Legal review of documentation
> Legal review?
> For 11 years, I worked at a company that produced
> industrial x-ray machines. These were hazardous
> electrically, mechanically, and in radiation exposure.
> We had strict safety regulations in house. But... the
> company had no interest in the documentation.
> I was the only writer and when I left, they did not replace
> me for over a year. Not only did I not have legal review of
> documentation, I rarely had any review. The manuals were
> often no more than my opinion. I put in a spattering of
> warnings and caution notices, but minimized these in
> favor of clarity, as I've heard others mention.
> As a restaurant worker will often not eat where they work
> after knowing what goes on in the kitchen, I would never
> be an operator of one of the machines we made. I know that
> the radiation exposure is cumulative and would not want to be
> exposed to the maximum allowed leakage on a daily basis.
> The machines we sent to third world countries did not need
> to meet our governments maximum allowed leakage, just the
> less strict regulations of that country. "Labor is cheap."
> Even with all their problems and attitudes, I never heard of a
> legal problem associated with the liability of the machines, in
> the 15 year existence of the company.
> I don't know what this proves except maybe that legal review of
> documentation is probably overkill.
> >I would like to know how many companies (or individuals) have their
> >documentation reviewed by lawyers before it is released.
> >If you don't have your documentation reviewed by lawyers, why not?
> >Suzanne Gerrior
> Wendy Lewis
> North Coast Logic
> Never moon a werewolf.
> -- Mike Binder
> Send commands to listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g., SIGNOFF
> Find contractor info at