Re: "Two-track" documentation?PART II

Subject: Re: "Two-track" documentation?PART II
From: Ed Gregory <edgregory -at- home -dot- com>
To: Dan Brinegar <vr2link -at- vr2link -dot- com>, "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:00:14 -0600

This time, Andrew is off-based.

I learned about writing for the audience as a journalist. I often wrote
about the same news event for different audiences - my local newspaper and
trade magazines. The way I explained a banking deal in the newspaper was
quite different from the way I explained it in Southern Banker. The way I
explained ISDN in my local newspaper was quite different from the way I
wrote about it in MISWeek or Datamation.

It's not a matter of how intelligent the audience is. It is how much
information they can be assumed to have to start with, and how much detail
they want or need.

Both the trade press and local press stories were intended to be accurate
and concise, but from the standpoint of their different audiences.

I don't know whether I've read or not read any of Andrew's books, but I
know that I have a collection of "not read" books on my bookshelf written
by people with the same attitude that he displays toward audience.

Ed Gregory

Re: "Two-track" documentation?: From: Dan Brinegar

Previous by Author: Re: Motivation
Next by Author: Re: "Two-track" documentation
Previous by Thread: Re: "Two-track" documentation?PART II
Next by Thread: Re: "Two-track" documentation?

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads