Survey

[Hillary Jones <hillary -at- NICHIMEN -dot- COM>]

> nothing exists that resembles a methodology, rather, most discussion
> centers around "style" as if every manual should be different for some
> unspecified reason --  in fact, there is an annual contest at the
> university of waterloo that gives merit for "best looking manual".

This is absurd. Of course technical writers use a methodology. Every
text I've ever looked at has given a methodology that goes something
like this:

1. Analyzing the audience and situation
2. Researching potential documentation solutions, then settling on one
   that best meets the audience and situational needs
3. Drafting
4. Reviewing--both by SMEs and by other writers
5. Revising
6. Testing by actual users
7. Revising
8. Evaluating

Anybody other than me seen and used this sort of a method to
documentation?

Anyway, the beauty of technical writing is that the *people* are the
problem-solvers; the tools (software that we have "placed our faith in")
are just what we use to implement our solutions.

Frankly it sounds to me like the group doing this study doesn't know a
whole lot about the field of tech writing; are they operating from real
facts or from a few stereotypes?

--
******************************
Hillary Jones
hillary -at- nichimen -dot- com

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6589
******************************

 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