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: ADMIN: Why the Listowner's Such a Jerk, Again From:Stan Xhiao <mrlukeplease -at- HOTMAIL -dot- COM> Date:Sat, 19 Dec 1998 06:49:43 PST
At the risk of posting a "me too" message, I'd like to thank Mike for
clearly stating one of my concerns about TECHWR-L.
While many posts deal with the issues of how to be a good writer (tools
to use, fine points of grammar, and so on) there are relatively few
posts about how to write well.
>From techwr-l -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu Fri Dec 18 22:37:52 1998
>Received: from listserv (188.8.131.52) by listserv.okstate.edu (LSMTP
for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0 -dot- 162C01A0 -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu>;
Sat, 19 Dec 1998 0:25:31 -0600
>Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:15:57 -0500
>Reply-To: "Huber, Mike" <mrhuber -at- SOFTWARE -dot- ROCKWELL -dot- COM>
>Sender: "Technical Writers List; for all Technical Communication
> <TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU>
>From: "Huber, Mike" <mrhuber -at- SOFTWARE -dot- ROCKWELL -dot- COM>
>Subject: Re: ADMIN: Why the Listowner's Such a Jerk, Again
>Comments: To: bzako -at- raymarkx -dot- com
>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>I think I said something similar last week in a thread about degrees:
>problem is BAD DOCUMENTATION. Not lack of degrees, not the lack of
>standards, not the occasional typo, not that someone wrote
>when it should have been "workaround", not that Word is a pile of
>that would have been laughed off the market if any other company had
>to release it, not that HTML isn't pretty enough for our fine art (hey,
>a minute - I do use HTML for actual fine art - see www.sito.org).
>BAD DOCUMENTATION is where the reader can't get the information he or
>needs, because it isn't there, or isn't expressed clearly, or because
>document isn't organized.
>We need to focus more, here and in other places where people who write
>documentation gather, like the STC. If we want more respect, or more
>we have to write more good documentation and less bad documentation.
>We need to get past being self-important professionals, past our
>making a living by writing, past our fine methodologies and spiffy
>templates, past being right or wrong about grammar, and just plain
>good documentation. We do that by thinking about the poor bastard who
>make the thing we are writing about work, who can't yell down the hall
>the engineer who designed it. All the other stuff may help, but when
>think about it, the reader is going to suffer much more if Anon fails
>resolve the question of balancing the politics of the junior engineer's
>position and expertise than if the other writer chooses wrongly between
>SQL" and "an SQL".
>mike -dot- huber -at- software -dot- rockwell -dot- com
>nax -at- execpc -dot- com
>>Bryan Zako wrote:
>> The manuals I use on a day-to-day basis (possibly written by the same
>> >authors of the email I've been getting all morning), are in
>> general poorly written. Content is all over the place, information is
>> missing, etc...there seems to be a genuine lack of understanding by
>> IT tech writers on how to put together a manual (I include MicroSoft
>> as well as other large software corps-- I hope I am not one of these,
>> but who can say).
>> I thought that others would share my concerns over the
>> alarming state of documentation in the industry. That everyone would
>> talking about it and trying to find solutions. I thought I would get
>> other IT writers in the industry, the ones who are putting these docs
>> together and who know they could do better. What they did wrong, how
>> it better next
>> time, etc...
>From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000==