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: What to do? From:eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:22:25 -0500
Dick Margulis <margulis -at- fiam -dot- net> wrote on 10/29/2003 10:58:38 AM:
> The project manager pointed out that there are state
> regulations in New York
> that govern who can have "engineer" in their job title, and that
> therefore he would not be able to accommodate my request.
> I assume this
> varies from state to state, but it's something to keep in mind.
Too true. And that is one reason I object to Technical Writing as being defined
as an engineering discipline. Once it's generally defined as such the push will
be on to have technical writing governed by the various Engineering Professional
Boards. While I studied engineering in university, I really have no desire to
pay the Ordre des Ingenieurs du Quebec their multiple hundred dollar membership
dues and follow the whole Jr. Eng. to P.Eng. process for technical writing.
A second reason, as someone who holds a bachelor's degree in mechanical
engineering, is the cheapening of the title of engineer. Even though "Sanitation
Engineers", "Information Engineers", and the like can't sign their name with the
P.Eng. and don't face the same legal considerations and responsibilities it gets
in my craw that the title is being used even in a round-about legal manner.
Kudos to the state of New York if their professional boards have taken the step
further to ban engineer of engineering from such jobs and titles.
A third reason, is this debate seems to be those that say it is and those that
say it isn't. A standard polar Techwr-L debate. In reality it's probably
somewhere in between. My function could be considered engineering. My employer's
customers and the public at large may be better served if I was bound by the
Professional Engineer Board and the various Provincial laws that bind Engineers.
I say that because of the nature of the products that my employer builds, the
documents that we produce to support them, and the consequences inaccurate,
incomplete, or incorrect documentation could have. But considering the
consequences and obligations the title of Engineer would impose on writers, I'm
happy to not be an Engineer and leave the worry and ultimate responsibility with
my management and the Engineers who need to approve the documentation. For many
of the jobs that techwriters do, IMO, there's no way they would be considered
engineers.
RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for
competitive pricing or download a trial at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l4
---
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.
