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.
Depends on what we define as the "fundamentals." Right now, I'm rewriting
several hundred pages that have a wide range of quality when it comes to
grammar and legibility of sentences; some chapters are nicely written, some
are horrendous, but all are absolutely consistent in that they don't include
the information that the audience needs. They describe in great detail how
the product works, including all sorts of wonderful information about arrays
and buffers, but to someone who just needs to know which menu to click,
they're not very good. Now, if I define "fundamentals" as good spelling,
grammar, and legibility, I could do a bang-up job of making all of this
information perfectly written, but it would still be the wrong information.
So, I define the fundamentals as that which allows the users to accomplish
their goals and go home, which means that I have to include different
information. I promise to spell-check it, but it's kind of a big job, so I
don't really have time to spell check this message. Sorry.
- Scott M
smiller -at- portal -dot- com
> If you're talking about obsessing on the simple stuff WITHOUT talking
> about
> the deeper issues, then I agree. But I will insist that we have to get the
> fundamentals right.
>
