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.
Andrew wrote:
> "Imagine if somebody walked up to you and said they were going to create a
> complex piece of software based on an environmental report you just published
> using FrameMaker, and they had no idea how to program or read (and no
> intention of learning)."
Maybe the better comparison is "Imagine if a programmer said he was going
to create a complex piece of software to control complex machinery, but
they had no intention on learning what the machinery does or even how it
does it."
But that's beside the point. What I want to say is:
> Regardless of whether you are writing for programmers or monkeys, you should
> have detailed technical understanding of what you're documenting. It is
> *completely impossible* to document a product or technology intelligently if
> you do not understand how it works or how it was built.
IMO, one needs to walk a fine line between being too ignorant and being too
familiar with the product.
If you're too familiar, you'll write documentation as good as an engineer
-- which is to say, typically not very well. Engineers tend to make
assumptions, use geek-speak, provide too much details about the things that
keenly interest them, and tend to ignore what doesn't interest them. We've
all encountered documentation written by an engineer!
If you're too ignorant, you'll frustrate heck out of the SMEs that review
your work, and you may very well provide documentation that underestimates
your audience's familiarity with the product and its use.
When you know so much about the product that you never have to ask the
engineers a "dumb question," then you're too familiar with the product and
it's time to bail: you're probably not in touch with the audience any more,
and you're certainly not helping the engineers think through problems of
consistency, UI and functionality.
When you know so little that you're asking nothing but dumb questions, then
you're probably a net drain on the client and should refer them to someone
with a bit more geek knowledge in that field. You can't document esoteric
microbiology without some knowledge of cellular structures and functions --
either take a crash course and learn, or give your client a break and don't
punish them with your ignorance! Likewise for other fields.
Summary: you have to be more expert than your target audience, and should
have enough expertise that you aren't continually annoying the engineers --
but not so much expertise that you could pinch-hit for the engineers.
IMO, YMMV, and I'm sure Andrew will have fierce words in response, as
always. Goodness, I hope he handles his clients better than he does his
reading audience in this list!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Develop HTML-based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver! (STC Discount.)
**NEW DATE/LOCATION!** January 16-17, 2001, New York, NY. http://www.weisner.com/training/dreamweaver_help.htm or 800-646-9989.
Sponsored by SOLUTIONS, Conferences and Seminars for Communicators
Publications Management Clinic, TECH*COMM 2001 Conference, and more http://www.SolutionsEvents.com or 800-448-4230
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
