Re: Dividing the Tech writer job

[Tim Altom <taltom -at- SIMPLYWRITTEN -dot- COM>]

I've been following this thread with high interest, having just wrapped up
the work of the Certification Committee for STC. Perhaps Eric Ray says it
all best in his separate posting that we shouldn't be like the lawyer who
passes his bar exam on the sixth try and then argues for raising the
entrance standards.

Still, I think we could all agree that there is a threshold point that must
be crossed before we could seriously call a newbie a "technical
communicator". Granted, almost all of us came from somewhere else, and the
profession is both stronger and weaker for it. Still, I think that our
generally agreed-upon threshold is rather higher than that of most
employers, who seem to think that a basic knowledge of Microsoft Word is all
the aspiring technical communicator needs. Although we all had to learn hard
and fast when we arrived, I think we could also agree that we all knew in
our hearts that we had to cross an invisible line before we could style
ourselves as professionals. Typists haven't crossed it yet. They can, as we
all can and did. The trick is to identify the line, and that issue has
consumed practitioners from techwhirl to the halls of STC.

I for one support STC president Lance Gelein in his desire for a definition
of basic skills for technical communicators. I say that the line we all must
cross shouldn't be quivering and invisible, but plain and obvious.

Tim Altom
Simply Written, Inc.
317.899.5882
http://www.simplywritten.com
Creators of the Clustar Method for task-based documentation





>Let me ask some of you to read the original post once more.
>
>Note that I did not say "cannot grow".... I said "do not grow" as in
>matter of course. Sure, if someone is ANYthing (burger flippers
>included), they *may* be able to be a technical writer. But it is
>definitely not the norm. Nor is understanding technical jargon. I would
>venture to say that few rocket scientists could be good technical
>writers, either. We are talking different skill sets here. There are no
>skills in typing or typesetting that qualify as good WRITING skills.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Theresa Jakupco [mailto:Tsjz -at- AOL -dot- COM]
>>
>> Jane,
>> In a message dated 8/10/98 6:48:02 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> <<Typists do not "grow into technical writers.">>
>>
>> An arrow shot threw my heart as I read this. Nonsense! I began as a
>> typist/typesetter in the early '70s. I could/can read most
>> scientific/engineering/computer-related journals with very
>> good comprehension.
>> At least enough to point out that some sentences were
>> probably not what the
>> professional intended to say.
>
>Comprehension is only part of the battle. A lot of people can look at a
>sentence and tell that it doesn't work. Fewer know how to fix it. And
>fewer still know WHY....now that's what the good writer can do.
>
>Jane
>
>From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000==
>
>
>

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=