Re: RTFineM

[Erik Harris <ewh -at- PLAZA -dot- DS -dot- ADP -dot- COM>]

>         Patrick Brian O'Connell said:
>         "OK, time for a show of hands.
>         Who doesn't RTFM for the tools they use -- unless absolutely
>         necessary -- but writes manuals for other ones (IMHO all
>         programs are tools of one kind or another) notwithstanding?

I've just joined the discussion, but are we drawing a distinction between
not RTFMing for tools we use and calling Tech Support instead, or not
RTFMing for the tools we use and experimenting with them to learn the facts
instead? In the former case, we might deserve a wrist slap; in the latter,
so long as the tool permits safe experimentation, I don't see a reason for
us to be ashamed, even if we do write manuals for other tools.

My response is part of my evolving perception of the task to which a tech
writer is charged, which I'd call a "journey to design." In my work for
three wildly-different companies in five years, I've found my position to
be always in a progression from production-stage work (furiously writing a
handbook of product functions before it is shipped) through
development-stage work (writing the handbook while the product is being
completed, using a style guide or old handbook to satisfy design questions)
to design-stage work (crafting the product to suit its intended use, based
on experience gained from bad design I observed in the first two stages).
The design-stage work is curious in that I try to make the need for a
manual obsolete and the product functions self-evident. After a fashion, I
try to *eliminate* the manual. Should I be ashamed?

-------------------------------
Quod erat demonstrandum
Erik Harris
ewh -at- plaza -dot- ds -dot- adp -dot- com (weekdays)
TrinityPlc -at- aol -dot- com (home)