Re: Tech writer vs. Information Developer

[Stuart Burnfield <slb -at- FS -dot- COM -dot- AU>]

Some of the job titles that have been suggested:
- Information Developer
- Document Specialist
- Document Designer
- Technical Writer
- Documentation Engineer
- Technical Specialist, Writer
- Communication Specialist
- Information Analyst

It usually comes down to a choice between the plain title that is clear
but only about 70% accurate, and the abstract title that is about 95%
right but vague and meaningless to most people.

I like Technical Writer. It's a good description for how I spend a lot
of my time. Unfortunately more than half my time is spent not writing.
Documentation Smurf is good too, though some feel it lacks dignity.

Information Developer and Communication Specialist are more inclusive,
but they could just as easily apply to people who do entirely different
work. If I called myself a communication specialist most people, even most
other technical writers, would say "And what do you do?" It's not wrong
but it's not very helpful.

I'm a bit suspicious of titles that end in 'Engineer'. It makes me think
that the person is slightly ashamed of their profession and is worried
that it lacks status. Its only virtue is that it annoys real engineers.

(No offence to anyone who uses any of these titles -- just MHO.)

If someone I've just met asks me what I do, I say "I write manuals for
a software company." On official forms and so on I put 'Technical Writer'.
My business cards are mute on the subject. If I have to come up with a
title when dealing with other businesses, I say something like Senior
Documentor or Documentation Manager, though these are very grand names
for the head of a very small group. When I go to the toilet, the
Documentation Division is unattended.

Regards
---
Stuart Burnfield (slb -at- fs -dot- com -dot- au)        Voice: +61 9 328 8288
Functional Software                     Fax:   +61 9 328 8616
PO Box 192
Leederville, Western Australia, 6903