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: Eng vs Writer From:MONETTE DENISE P 678-3843 MACA <dmonette -at- ARL -dot- MIL> Date:Wed, 3 May 1995 07:43:46 -0600
Tamara made some good points. I think this is why it is a good idea for
technical writers to have *some* technical background. To earn my
undergraduate degree, I was required to take chemistry, physics, and
calculus just like all the engineering majors, and I was required to minor
in a technical or scientific field. I did not choose to work in the
field of my minor, but all the classes made it more comfortable for me
to work with scientists and engineers. I am far from being an expert in
any one scientific or engineering field, but I know just enough to know
when something doesn't sound quite right and I need to go to the
scientist or engineer for clarification.
I figure I know just enough to know when something needs clarification.
When I am working on technical documents, I assume that the entire
audience probably will not have the level of expertise of the scientist
or engineer; therefore, I can help them determine when and where the
documents need to be modified to address a larger audience.
As for the technical writer versus engineer debate, that is like trying to
compare donut bakers with police officers; they both do their jobs and
they each benefit from the expertise of the other. Thank goodness we
aren't all the same, life would be very BORING!!
> I am certainly not trying to categorize all tech writers who do not have
> technical backgrounds, but in every tech writing project I've taken on, I've
> had to "clean up" after someone who'd never read a line of code. Or taken a
> drafting class. Or learned basic electrical wiring schematics, and what a
> resistor or capacitor really does to the current and voltage in a circuit.
> I have yet to meet an engineer or programmer who was at all impressed with
> what these people did. And the user manuals (generally aimed at highly
> skilled professionals) were anywhere from Ok to horrid. Simple things, like
> where output files go, were often overlooked or wrongly written up,
> resulting in "top priority" bugs for the company. Documentation shouldn't
> result in bug reports!
> Certainly my engineering degree did not qualify me to write. I have taken a
> lot of courses in writing and English (even literature!), I attend
> seminars/conferences whenever I can, and I read as much as possible. Still,
> I think the people I've come across recently with Tech Comm degrees have
> some great knowledge that I lack.
> I also believe there are issues of breadth vs. depth and audience, which
> really determine how much of the "inner workings" of a product the writer
> needs to understand. How do you know, for instance, when you've covered a
> topic completely? If it is a user interface, you can push the buttons, but a
> cursory reading of the code might lead you to a print statement that you'd
> never seen. You could then follow up on what made that situation occur. And
> if your audience is programmers and developers? How then do you evaluate
> your writing?
> ----------
> From: RSMH
> To: 1455; TECHWR-L
> Subject: Re: Eng vs Writer, BULL, Writ...
> Date: Tuesday, 2 May, 1995 4:03PM
> Tamara Peters writes;
> Won't it be great when Tech Comm programs in universities require enough
> SOLID technical classes that entry level writers could actually read and
> wire circuits, write and debug a C program, understand basic business
> operations such as accounting and human resources, and build a basic motor?
> I frankly don't agree that such knowledge is necessary to be a good
> technical
> writer. Could it be useful? Yes, of course. Do you have to know such
> information to be a good tech writer? I don't think so. I write software
> manuals (along with On-line Help and training materials), and I have never
> read one line of code. Yet I am able to write useful user manuals for both
> administrators and end-users. I am not debating that your knowledge helps
> you
> in whatever aspect of technical writing that you undertake, but for me, I am
> virtually ignorant of such things, yet still can write manuals.
