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.
I remember getting into a discussion with a fellow writer a few years back
about minimalist software documentation. We both agreed that if you carry
that idea far enough, nobody gets *anything* with their new software. No
books, no online help, no 1-800 number, no nuthin'. Figure it out
yourself. Sink or swim. Learn from your mistakes. etc.
I think the discussion leads into the ongoing battle between behaviorists
and constructivists. Constructivists preach (but I think w/o *always*
practicing it) that every "learner" has his or her own schema based on
background, aptitude, attitude, favorite ice-cream flavor, etc. and creates
personalized meaning out of stimuli. According to them, there is little
chance of devising a single recipe for success that can be used reliably
because every learner (or documentation user) is different and would see
whatever you wrote differently than would their neighbor in the next cube.
If you followed their view, you would have to completely analyze and write
a book for *each and every* user. Given the difficulties with that plan,
constructivists would probably support less structured, and probably less
lengthy documentation, arguing that the learner will have to work out their
own view of the subject and can't be forced to learn it any particular way
anyway.
Behaviorists, however, would more likely support a systematic program of
instruction (in this case documentation) that would give the learner (user)
a method for learning the material that should be followed (but not
necessarily in lockstep) in some ordered sequence.
An instructional designer, I see merits in both views. No two learners are
identical, granted, but leaving the user completely alone in an environment
to figure things out for him/herself strikes me as cruel and inefficient.
I try to build learning environments (in my case military
computer-based-training) that allow *each* learner to exercise his or her
particular learning style without letting him or her get lost in the
information.
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
