Defensible assertions?

[geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA]

 Nancy Hoft asked for opinions on a few assertions in a book
 she was editing:

 <<Do you agree that the majority of technical communication
 is paper-based?>>

 Yes. Computers are pretty widespread, but they're by no
 means the only game in town. For example, there are more
 telephones, cars, toasters, and VCRs in the world than
 there are computers... and none of these devices include
 any form of online docs. Online will become increasingly
 prevalent, but outside the computer industry per se, it
 will be essentially nonexistent until someone develops a
 cheap (<$100) device with the size and functionality of a
 paperback book that can replace a printed user manual.

 <<First, they argue plausibly that the majority of
 technical communication in the workplace is still
 paper-based and that many students will be entering
 companies where they could certainly get by with little
 more than basic word processing skills.>>

 See previous comment re. ubiquity of paper. As for the
 latter, this is an old, old, recurring debate on techwr-l:
 "Is it more important to hire a good writer or a good tool
 user?" The consensus is that there's no consensus. Me, I'd
 pick someone with the writing skills provided they can
 learn to use the software. Others disagree. YMMV.

 <<Second, these instructors argue that their courses are
 intended to teach technical communication, not computer
 literacy.>>

 And that's true if you accept _my_ prejudice that
 communication, not tool use, is the more important
 criterion. I doubt that any credible programme would
 completely exclude an introduction to the various tools,
 but that's another story. Extreme example: It's still
 pretty common (in my experience with biological research)
 for highly intelligent, technically competent researchers
 to hand-write their papers and have someone else type and
 format them. Others are basically able to type, but
 completely immune to the concept of word processing. YMMV.

 <<What do you think of the word "forbidding"?>>

 Perfectly legitimate in the context you cite. Check a good
 dictionary. "Intimidating" might be better for a really
 general audience.

 <<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?>>

 Depends entirely on the competition for the job. If you
 find only one irreplacable candidate, whose only defect is
 that they're computer illiterate, you may very well have to
 provide such training. For most writing-based jobs, there
 will be so many candidates who _do_ have computer skills
 that my "irreplacable candidate" scenario is becoming
 increasingly implausible. That's not to say that employers
 should expect to hire Bill Gates for minimum wage;
 employers have the responsibility to provide some training
 too, particularly if the tools or demands of the job
 change. Others would disagree vehemently.

 --Geoff Hart     @8^{)}     geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
 Disclaimer: Speaking for myself, not FERIC.

 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