Re: What do you think?

[Theresa Marchwinski <theresma -at- ATTACHMATE -dot- COM>]

Nancy:

I understand why you are incredulous--I am too. That said, I am glad
that you have the opportunity to review this book (though I am hoping
it has not been accepted for publication "as is").

I agree with most of what the other members of the list have already
said, so what follows is more of a comment on the logic of the
writing. Keep in mind that I am giving the author(s) the benefit of
the doubt--that the extracted text you listed might make more sense in
context.


Snipet One -- Question: Do you agree that the majority of technical
communication is paper-based? <<paragraph text snipped>>

It depends on what the author(s) considers to be technical
communication, and then it depends on the type of industry.
Ultimately, I don't believe that the answer to whether or not the
majority of technical communication is paper-based supports what
appears to be the main point of the paragraph (using or not using
computers in the classroom). Although the final sentence of the
paragraph is valid for writing instructors ("instructors argue that
their courses are intended to teach technical communication, not
computer literacy"), the preceding text does not support that.


Snipet Two -- Question:  What do you think of the word "forbidding"?
<<paragraph text snipped>>

In this case, I think the word "forbidding" is a horrible choice and
the author(s) has made a gross generalization. I find this paragraph
offensive and question the purpose of the Dale Sender (1995) source.
What is the author(s) trying to prove here? The definition of
computers and networks appears to be entirely too narrow (anyone who
has used a bank machine or a greeting card kiosk has used a computer).
Then I question who the audience is for this book. I am being a little
sarcastic here, but in this case it seems that the audience is
"instructors" who are apparently not "privileged white men,"  "women,"
or "people from disadvantaged groups."


Snipet Three -- Do you think that your employers will be willing to
train new hires in technical communication on how to use a computer
to do their jobs? <<paragraph text snipped>>

This is a difficult question to answer. For technical communicator
positions, I do not believe that employers are willing to teach new
hires, for example,  "PC" or "Macintosh" basics (how to turn them
on/off, how to save data to a disk, how to start a program). I'll stop
here on this issue because it's been discussed many times on this
list; also, there was a session at the STC conference in Toronto that
touched on this subject. (Thea Teich was the moderator. I don't have
the Proceedings with me right now, so contact me if you want the
details.)

My general impression is that the author(s) is trying to defend an
approach to teaching technical communication that does not include
teaching about computers or about how to use them. The author(s) could
perhaps make a case for ignoring computers in a writing *course*, but
could not make a very successful case for ignoring computers (at least
as tools for writing, editing, indexing, formatting...) in a technical
communication *program*.

Theresa Marchwinski
theresma -at- attachmate -dot- com
Senior Technical Writer, Attachmate Corporation

 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