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 is not mandated is forbidden From:Tony Chung <tonyc -at- tonychung -dot- ca> To:"McLauchlan, Kevin" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com> Date:Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:32:53 -0700
My take is that now that a call is in progress, it belongs in the docs. If
a call wasn't in progress, and the customers wouldn't know to ask because
it's not in the docs, then It doesn't belong in the docs.
However, if omitting something from the docs could cause a critical
failure, or babies would die, or something, then it should be in the docs.
Much of this falls under the category of "nice to know".
-T
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:14 AM, McLauchlan, Kevin <
Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com> wrote:
> Does everyone subscribe to the notion that customer docs should contain
> only what is necessary?
>
> Is there a place for material that is good to know, or that might reduce
> customer inquiries, but is not necessarily critical to performing a task?
>
>
> The most recent example that prompted this thought was a statement in an
> e-mail thread (internal) where a PLM stated clearly and succinctly how
> 'discovered vulnerabilities' are handled for our products. I know that the
> question comes up, in different forms, with some regularity, so I asked if
> it would be good to include the two-sentence statement in the main customer
> docs. The answer was that it wasn't really necessary in the docs, as it
> was "marketing-speak to show how secure our stuff is". In a sense, that's
> true, but it was also a quick, clear description of the procedure we go
> through, and what the three possible outcomes are.
>
> I didn't push, because it wasn't terrifically important, and not every
> battle is worth fighting. But, as it stands, that statement exists only
> as guidance for techs and sales engineers to respond to customers who ask.
> So, by that point, there's already a call in progress. If they had seen the
> info in the docs, the call might never have been made.
>
> The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
> may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
> from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
> message and deleting it from your computer without copying
> or disclosing it.
>
>
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Doc-To-Help 2014 v1 now available. SharePoint 2013 support, NetHelp
> enhancements, and more. Read all about it.
>
> Learn more: http://bit.ly/NNcWqS
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as tonyc -at- tonychung -dot- ca -dot-
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>
>
> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
>http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and
> info.
>
> Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online
> magazine at http://techwhirl.com
>
> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public
> email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doc-To-Help 2014 v1 now available. SharePoint 2013 support, NetHelp enhancements, and more. Read all about it.
