Ckarification (was Real Offense)

[DowningLst -at- aol -dot- com]

I wanted to clarify one point and respond to one of Andrew Plato's

statements.


First, when I spoke of writers who spend too much time debating theory, 
methodology, etc., and too little time on their jobs, I did *not* mean to say 
that everything you learn in an academic program is hogwash.  I found 
everything I learned quite valuable.  Rather, I was thinking of Ecclesiates 
-- i.e., there is a time to debate theory and a timer to refrain from 
debating theory and get down to business.


Now, to turn from Ecclesiates to Plato --


<<They should focus on teaching technologies that will help writers

understand the complex designs, products, and services they must document.  


For example - I think ALL tech writers in the computer industry should be

forced at gunpoint to take a C++ and SQL class (or something similar).

Writers who know how programs are written and databases are used are 1000

times more  qualified to write about those things. >>

I must confess I have a reservation about that.  If it would really work the 
way Andrew believes it would -- and *only* that way, it'd be a great idea.  
But there is a danger, which is that too much of such training could give a 
writer the wrong orientation.  The end user doesn't need or want to know 
about such things as file structures, parameters types, function calls, etc., 
etc.  The end user wants to know "How do I use this program to do my 
resume/term paper, etc."  If the technical know-how helps the writer answer 
these questions, great.  If it leads the writer to hit end users with details 
they don't need, that's not so hot.

David


 (If you respond and want me to see it immediately, your best bet is to send

or copy it off-list to DavidDowning -at- users -dot- com)