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.
Actually, I consider this a very *good* question. Not because there is (or
can be) a universal consensus, but because the "correct" answer will vary
from place to place, project to project.
In my specialty (writing software documentation to the technologically
unsophisticated audience) too much knowledge of the technology could be a
handicap, because I might fall into using jargon or making too many
assumptions. In a specialty like Andrew mentions (writing very technical
material for a technologically sophisticated audience) a lack of
understanding of the technology would be a major handicap.
I would appreciate this question in an interview because if I got the
answer "wrong", that job would be outside my skill set. Sure, I could
certainly learn to do it -- but my first attempt wouldn't be very fast or
very good, and as a contractor, I'm usually placed on projects where the
employer has chosen "Fast and Good" rather than "Cheap". (From the old
saw: "Good, Fast, Cheap -- Pick Two")
Luckily I do understand computer programming to some extent, and I'm a
quick study on computer applications, so it works out fine. My audience
generally doesn't care about software but is being forced by the advances
of all kinds of technology to change the way they do their jobs. They want
just enough information to get the job done. I'm very good at winnowing
out what they need from the myriad details and presenting the information
in an easy to use format. That's the sort of project I do best at and if
some other skill set is required, I'd prefer that both the employer and I
knew up front that I'm not the perfect candidate. That doesn't mean I
won't take the job or do my very best -- but it's only fair that we all
know ahead of time that I'll be facing challenges I haven't solved before.
Misti Anslin Tucker
matucker -at- mmm -dot- com
Andrew Plato <aplato -at- easystreet -dot- com> on 10/06/98 06:53:04 PM
Please respond to Andrew Plato <aplato -at- easystreet -dot- com>
> This is in response to Andrew Plato's summary of the "lying applicants"
> thread. In his list of questions he asked, "What's more important,
knowing
> the tools or knowing the technology?" We've had this discussion before
and
> I'm not sure we actually came to a consensus on the answer.
And there never will be any consensus on this question because it is a
question of personal preference. Of course I have a completely small
minded
opinion about this...
I ask the tools vs. tech question because at my company, a consulting
company, knowledge of technologies is vastly more important than knowledge
of tools. In my opinion, ANYONE on the planet can learn how to use Word or
how to write a sentence. Tech writing is a skill not an art. With a
little
practice and the right direction, anyone with a reasonable amount of effort
can learn to write. Sheesh, *I* learned how to write and I am a total
moron.
Knowledge and experience with technologies like relational databases, C,
and
IIS is much harder to learn. This is because there is so much more to know
and it is much harder to gain experience with technologies. Anyone can go
buy a copy of FrameMaker and teach themselves how to do master pages, but
could you setup a web-based transaction server with a SQL Server back-end
at
home?
Moreover, knowledge of one technology almost always spills over into other
technologies. For example, understanding how TCP/IP works can make
understanding the operation of switches, hubs, and routers much easier.
Conversely, understanding how FrameMaker works is almost a hindrance to
understanding how Word or other such tools function. Skill with FrameMaker
does not spill over into skill with other tools.
Thus, in my opinion, the tool vs. technology debate boils down to one
thing:
do you want to know how to hammer or how to build a house? Anyone can
hammer, but not everyone who can hammer can build a house.
So, ultimately the question is one of what you value more: a limited set of
skills with some tools or a expansive set of skills with many technologies.
Some people prefer to be specialists in just a few things while some of us
prefer a wider set of experience. Either way, it ultimately comes down to
your personal preference - not some law written in stone by God.
Okay, let the griping begin!
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Plato
President / Principal Consultant
Anitian Consulting, Inc.
www.anitian.com
