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.
> Ned Bedinger wrote:
> The argument, so it goes, is that jargon isn't a problem for technical
> writers, it is a problem for the audience.
I've never bought into this blanket ban on jargon. I've seen writers do some pretty interesting verbal gymnastics to avoid using a "jargony" term....to the extent that they create a non-technical sounding word to mean the exact same thing as the "jargony" term thus inventing their own jargon that is confusing to everyone. I've also seen writers invent new terms for jargon that is within the audience's vocabulary--I'm thinking of terms specific to a profession that anyone within the profession would know. The irony is that avoiding jargon is supposed to prevent audience confusion, but from what I've seen it only makes things more confusing because it discounts audience knowledge in favor of a mythical lowest common denominator that knows nothing of the world--including highly trained professionals who know nothing about their own job.
> Ned Bedinger wrote:
> I expect that the majority of what we filter out
> of documentation as jargon is actually not about the words at all. It is
> rather about the concepts underlying the words.
> and Geoff Hart wrote:
> I tend to use the phrase "(in)
> appropriate jargon" to focus on your first point: it's not so
> important whether a word is technical, but rather whether its level
> of technicality is appropriate for the readers.
Now both of these make more sense beacuse they are taking into account audience knowledge and needs. It takes more work to write in this way--a writer actually has to understand the field for which they are writing and understand the people for whom they are writing and understand the basic goal of the material that they are producing--but it leads to documentation that goes beyond simple point-and-click steps. Granted, there is nothing wrong with point-and-click steps if your goal is to write those.
> Ned Bedinger wrote:
> The word jargon can be defined
> across a pretty darned huge conceptual range, so I don't think it has
> much utility, even as one of the individual definitions, to a tech
> writer.
It would seem, if not for any other reason but because it leads writers into making the kinds of decisions about which I have just ranted.
Anyway, I'll step down from my soap box now. :-)
Cheers.
********************************************
Sean Hower - communications specialist http://www.sean-hower.com
_____________________________________________________________
Create your own web site for FREE at http://www.freehomepage.com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
Now shipping: Help & Manual 4 with RoboHelp(r) import! New editor,
full Unicode support. Create help files, web-based help and PDF in up
to 106 languages with Help & Manual: http://www.helpandmanual.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
