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: STC Letter to the Editor From:"Grant, Christopher" <CGrant -at- glhec -dot- org> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Tue, 5 Nov 2002 09:32:09 -0600
> Personally, I believe that the average quality of
> writing *everywhere* is pathetic...but I *also*
> consider appreciation for and knowledge of
> presentation skills such as design, layout, and
> typography to be a part of each true professional's
> stock in trade.
Sure. A good writer ought to be able to make a slick product. AFTER
they've written something that is technically accurate and complete.
> After all, people are confronted with carefully
> designed materials all day--and making technical
> documentation *look* appealing is a part of actually
> getting it read to begin with!
A small part. What _really_ makes users read documentation is if the
information in the doc is accurate, complete, and provides them with content
they need. Lots of folks in my workplace have been happy with Word docs
with no TOC and very little layout and style considerations, simply because
those Word docs provide them with the content they need to do their jobs.
I will agree that the appearance of a document _contributes_ in some ways to
the effectiveness of the doc. For example, a slick-looking manual can
inspire confidence. However, the effects of pretty appearance are far less
than the effect of having a technically accurate, complete document.
> good as you claimed...but the best written
> documentation is not worth a d*** if it isn't read by
> the poor sod trying to get some work done with the
> tool they don't...quite...understand yet.
But it's worth even LESS if the information in it isn't technically accurate
and complete.
In my experience, I have NEVER heard a user say, "Boy, I just can't use this
manual because it's so UGLY!"
OTOH, I have OFTEN heard users say, "I don't use this manual because the
information in it is useless and incorrect."
Chris Grant
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All-new RoboHelp X3 is now shipping! Get single sourcing, print-quality
documentation, conditional text and much more, in the most monumental
release ever. Save $100! Order online at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
Check out SnagIt - The Screen Capture Standard!
Download a free 30-day trial from http://www.techsmith.com/rdr/txt/twr
Find out what all the other tech writers, including Dan, already know!
---
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.
