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.
Um. A spell checker might have suggested "grammar" for "grammer."
Please don't everyone dogpile on me next time I make a spelling blunder, my
spelling is atrocious. The only reason I point this out is the rather ironic
context of the mistake in these posts.
I think it reinforces Sue's point, that spelling is not among the vital
components in tech writing.
So, long live solid spellcheckers while in the meantime I pore over my work as
many times as I can in the proofing process to catch the strays.
>>John Bell proposed the following minimum skill testing:
>> - spell (I've met a few who rely on spell checkers!)
>> - use proper grammer
>> - organize thoughts logically
>> - write task oriented procedures
>> - research (knowing what questions to ask is important)
>I'm not sure that competency in the areas mentioned above would
>ensure that the certificate holder was a competent technical
>communicator. Spelling, IMHO, isn't quite as important as the
>ability to address multiple learning styles effectively.
The ideas, opinions, and language of the above message are all my fault, and in
no way does my employer even know what I'm saying, much less support it.
