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: Silly jargon (Uncooperative SMEs) From:Bev Parks <bparks -at- HUACHUCA-EMH1 -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL> Date:Sun, 2 Apr 1995 16:15:24 MST
Michael Priestley made several good comments about the "subject
matter expert" subject. But I couldn't resist responding to one
of them:
> I think a case could be made for subject expert vs. subject matter expert,
> but "subject matter" does seem a little clearer to me than "subject expert"
> - like, are they an expert on nominative clauses, or something? So
> "subject matter expert" may be a little clearer
> (when encountered in context).
So this must make you a "technical matter writer." As simply a
"technical writer" you could be a writer who is overly concerned
with technique. Thus, "technical writer" could apply to any kind
of writer: children's books, poetry, greeting cards. (If this
sounds far-fetched to anybody, just look up "technical" in your
dictionary and read the first definition.)
=*= Beverly Parks =*= bparks -at- huachuca-emh1 -dot- army -dot- mil =*=
=*= "These opinions are mine, not my employer's." =*=
=*= =*= =*=
