Calling all Technical Editors again!

[Ned Bedinger]

Ali Ferguson wrote:
> Hi all-
>   I sent an email out a few days ago about my pilot study for technical
> editing (see below).  Please, please help me!  I need more responses in
> order to develop a good questionnaire.

Glad you asked, now I can get this off my chest.  Sorry if it isn't what 
you're looking for, but every word of it is true and I expect you to 
take it to heart, share it with your class, acknowledge me as the 
source, and never pretend you were never told.

Variable:

Your variable is "direct experience or study in the technical field 
where you want to work."

The minimum, to me, is a degree in the technology you'll be documenting 
or editing. Direct experience isn't more valuable than study, but can 
qualify you if, for example, you went to work instead of college, or 
changed careers after college.

Explanation:

Documentation is NOT fundamentally about writing and editing skills, so 
your training should, likewise, not be fundamentally about those things. 
  Documentation is 95% (to pick a number) about the subject that is 
being documented, and to that same degree, about understanding the 
subject matter, and being able talk efficiently and productively to 
experts in the the subject.  Writing it all down correctly is hard 
enough, but having to do so without understanding it will turn you into 
a criminal.   The penalty is real and tangible, described below.

If I were to undertake your implied challenge, and design a class of 
technical documentation workers, I'm afraid I have bad news: I would 
turn the existing standard on its head.  My inverted standard would 
eliminate candidates who want to be a language person who edits or 
writes, but have no interest in becoming a technical person.

The base requirement would now be FIRST that technical editors 
demonstrate technical aptitude not just for language, but for ENGINEERED 
systems, which is a whole 'nother thing apart from an aptitude for 
language, IMHO.

Thus, the course of study for technical writing and editing would focus 
on math/science/engineering. You'd have a double major when you add in 
the usual requirement for coursework in instructional design and language.

Do you get my drift?  The work is about the naked subject matter. 
Though your contribution will be to dress it up in language, your 
background has to position you to understand the subject matter first.

Otherwise, you're going to end up drawing on your langauge skills too 
much ('this word or that synonym' decisions), making millions of 
suggested changes, over the course of a career, that don't account for 
the specialized context in which language is applied. An immaculately 
written and edited document that is technically wrong has no value.

Please don't get me wrong and think I'm saying something like "Technical
editors have to be engineers first, and only then could they take over 
the engineer's editing duties.  You don't have to be a certified 
engineer, though being fully qualified as an engineer wouldn't prevent 
you becoming an editor.

I realize that curious people have to study a subject before deciding 
that it really isn't a career for them.  Those Math/Science/Engineering 
students who decide they'd rather work the words than the numbers are 
the editors and writers I would likely hire first.

That's one side of the coin for me, which I think of as "predictors of 
success."

The other side is ultimately about how you can make yourself comfortable 
and at home in a technical workplace, over the long haul. In this view, 
the workplace is where you go and spend 8 hours a day doing the actual 
work of writing and editing. I am concerned with how you fit in, how you 
are seen, respected, and responded to by co-workers.

I'd be open to variations on background and education if you could 
convince me that you will work out well on this side of the coin, but 
I'm  pretty well convinced that technical workplaces attract technical 
people and are healthy for technical people, but are not really any 
place worth being if you don't have the inner gee.

I say this because I know that even the most mild mannered nerds, the 
ones who wears Hush Puppies, pocket-protectors, calculator belts, and 
fanny packs at the office, have an inner beach bully who will kick sand 
in your face if you don't understand what s/he's saying to you. When in 
Rome, do as the Romans.  You're on their beach!

When they have to explain everything to you, as a prerequisite and a 
requirement for you to begin to effectively produce edited copy, you'll 
find out just how asleep their bully was.

And once you're known this way, getting those explanations will become 
much harder for you.

Being cut off by your SMEs is a stress that a qualified technical editor 
might never feel, even in the course of a career. If it has come to that 
for you, consider yourself to be out in the scrub brush, off the track. 
  You have to take responsibility for it.

I think many technical writers and editors today, many of whom were 
hired according to their title and not their qualifications, have 
changed careers rather than face that kind of stress for long. It can be 
debilitating, a problem that leads to burn out, which is probably how 
most of the changelings came to the decision to get out.

Most employers would not let it go on for long in any case, though I 
think most realize that in the short term, SME-induced stresscan be a 
powerful motivator that awakens critical thinking skills in anyone, 
especially those qualified writers and editors who haven't kept up with 
the changing context in which the rest of the technical staff is working.

If you love your work, in the sense that Joseph Campbell used to say 
"Follow your bliss", then keeping up with the engineers is fun for you.

We all, and some more than others, fall behind and suffer from overwork, 
distractions, and boredom with our jobs; but when it is a chronic 
problem, you'll be unhappy enough that punching out seems like a great 
idea. Do it, is my advice.  And don't even start down the technical 
editing road if you aren't blissed by these ideas.

I mean every word of this as positive reinforcement for those people who 
are good candidates. To them I say "See you on the job." To everyone 
else, it's "See you on the internet."

Boy, I feel much better now. :-)

Ned Bedinger
doc at edwordsmith.com




> 
> "I am currently doing a pilot study for my Technical Editing Class.  I am
> interested in knowing what practicing technical editors believe are the most
> important skills/qualities necessary for becoming a successful technical
> editor.  For this question, please just provide a brief response about what
> you think are the most important skills a technical editor must possess.
>>From the answers to this open-ended question, I will then identify the
> variables for successful editing and develop a more fine-tuned survey."
> 
> Thank you in advance!
> Ali