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.
>It is worthwhile noting that metaphors are not just useful for
>communication, but actually essential.
Both my experience and my studies in NLP (an area based -- in part -- on
some of the findings in transformational grammar) tell me that Geoff's
right. Metaphor is often the quickest, most reliable way to communicate
the essence of difficult concepts. (Not that a metaphor is enough on its
own. But it can be a good place to get started.)
And yet, I often run into tech writers (or clients) who think that a
metaphor is somehow less dignified than an abstract explanation.
Example 1:
A colleague of mine compared the use of the "*" in various DOS
operations to the wildcard in a card game.
Result: Can you say "No dice"?
Example 2:
I compared the complex flow of data in a scenario-building tool to
photocopying. Everything on the original is on the copies, but make a
pen and ink change to one copy and it doesn't effect either the original
or the other copies. With the metaphor as a beginning, I was able to
more clearly explain something in two pages that had previously taken
five.
Result: Client felt that using only two pages to describe this important
feature might somehow it in the eyes of their users.
I'd be interested in your thoughts (pro and con) on the use and
appropriateness of metaphor in technical writing.
