RE: "Two-track" documentation

Subject: RE: "Two-track" documentation
From: "Ronica Roth" <rroth -at- exactis -dot- com>
To: "'Andrew Plato'" <intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com>, "'TECHWR-L'" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:53:39 -0700

Very funny. Very creative. However, I'm not sure why everyone--or at least
Plato--feels a need to define the ONE most important rule that comes above
all others. The world--and our profession--doesn't work that way. If you
just manage to follow one rule, you do not salvage the project. "Technically
accurate" is essential. As is "understandable to your audience." Without
one, the other is useless. If you don't have the time/resources to do both,
then you don't have the time/resources to do the job.

The other things we talk about--rules, guidelines, formatting, concise,
clear--are all just methods for achieving these first two.

Ronica Roth
Technical Writer, Inc.
rroth -at- exactis -dot- com

> -----Original Message-----
> Things NOT being said at the Jet Propulsion Lab these days:
> Jim, the tech writer: "Yeah, I saw it all on CNN. Sorry, I
> was away at the 'How to care for your tender audience' seminar."
> Buck: "Well, we figured out that because you wrote the wrong
> numbers in this
> mission plan, the lander accelerated and nose dived into the ground."

Previous by Author: RE: in the beginning there was....
Next by Author: RE: Baseline Skillset for Technical Writers?
Previous by Thread: Re: "Two-track" documentation
Next by Thread: Re: "Two-track" documentation

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads