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:What judging is like (WAS: Best examples of ...) From:Scott Miller <smiller -at- PORTAL -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:56:08 -0700
Regarding finding out what a good quality help system is by judging
them, Beth sez...
> Not to say that winning entries didn't deserve their awards -- I'm
> sure many
> of them did. However, I don't think that volunteering as a JUDGE is
> the best
> way to learn what constitutes quality. It scares me to think that
> might be judged by people who don't know what they're looking for.
> you're provided criteria and given limited "training" but without
> in the genre, you cannot differentiate between what "meets criteria"
> what is innovative. (Outstanding vs. dismal is much easier to
> discern.) As
> an example, how many people complained about the lack of capitals in
> headings until someone said it was "downstyle", and new, so it's okay?
> if someone's entry is based on new research that you know nothing
> "Different" doesn't mean "bad".
Most online judges that I've worked with are very experienced. There are
also beginners, but they are teamed with someone with a lot of
experience, both as a judge and as a writer. Not that it makes any
difference, however, since there are plenty of highly-experienced help
writers who aren't very good and don't know what quality help is. It's
possible to get a better, more fresh perspective from a less-experienced
writer than from someone who is more experienced, but less open-minded.
Also, the way it works is (in our competition anyway), you get the
software and the help, and basically do a usability study on it. The
important criteria is finding information quickly, which is a very
quantifiable property. You just put yourself in the role of a software
user, not a writer, and try to complete a task. If the help works, it's
a good help system.
As for new, innovative things, that's what most of us experienced judges
are in it for. It's a great way to steal ideas. Plus, there is a lot of
discussion among all the judges about what makes an entry an
award-winner, and what makes an entry less than successful.
As for the validity of the results... don't get me started.