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.
>Folks in the training biz always seem to refer to the content folks as
>subject matter experts (SME).
>I never understood what "matter" added to the descriptor. So I began
>calling these people (generically) "subject experts." It gave a few people
>pause and then they adopted it readily. Is there any reason to stick
>"matter" in there?
====== Bits cut out for brevity
>John Gear (catalyst -at- pacifier -dot- com)
John
Spot on. It is a step forward from my suggested "Technical Experts" because
we aren't always talking about Technical. If it really is necessary to have
an expansion of "Expert" "Subject" is probably tbe best.
Now what are the chanes of persuading everyone else to take notice of this
idea?
You say that trainers are the perpetrators of this crime. Sadly, they are
often the last people to acknowledge that they might have anything wrong.
They are even slower to change their ways.
Michael Kenward, Professional Ignoramus
m -dot- kenward -at- bbcnc -dot- org -dot- uk
