Re: Logic and the art of communication (was Real Writers - WRITE)

["David Berg" <dberg -at- dmpnet -dot- com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Plato" <intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com>

> If you're writing about something, you should know what you're
> writing about. Otherwise - you're not writing. You're just a text "pretty
> upper." (See below.)

It sounds like you're saying that there should be no need for SMEs, that
writers should always be their own SME. While a writer should become
familiar with their subject matter, I think it's absurd, and often a
flagrant waste of time and resources, to expect a writer to always be 100%
on top of their subject matter without input from others. In my company, as
is the case with many other writers, there is no single person I can go to
that has a complete knowledge of every product that I write about. This is
especially true when dealing with numerous small, technical items where each
item has its own brief set of documents. Perhaps you can come somewhat
closer to your standard when dealing with a longer writing project, where
you can immerse yourself in the subject.
>
> You were not a writer. Positions like yours are sold as writer positions
when
> in fact (according to your description) you did little if any writing. You
just
> organized other people's stuff.  That's what administrative assistants do.

Of course I'll beg to differ. I'm a communicator. The doctor that originated
the material I worked with is a medical expert.

I took the equivilent of 130 printed pages of online content and distilled
it down to about 40 pages, making the material much more succinct and
readable. Almost none of the original text survived the cut. I organized the
material and devised a navigation scheme to make everything easily
accessible. I did far more than a simple edit or administrative
reorganization of the content. I studied the material to gain a *basic*
understanding of what I was working with, along with interviewing the doctor
via phone and email. In the end, the doctor told me that he hardly
recognized the site, that it was a dramatic improvement on the original, and
that he found it difficult to read the finished material and believe that it
hadn't been written by a doctor. It certainly was a vast change from his
original content, but it was technically accurate and consistently
maintained the original message. It turned out so well he decided to submit
it to the AMA to qualify as CME credit for physicians.

> REAL WRITERS - WRITE.  Real writers take nothing and turn it into
something.
> Real writers pull from their own knowledge and understanding and do not
have to
> rely 100% on other people to show them the way. Sure, real writers work
closely
> with SMEs to make sure they're on the right track. But real writers don't
need
> the SME to bless every last sentence.  Real writers can take fragments of
ideas
> and designs, research them, and then write intelligent documents for an
SME to
> review.

Here I agree with you. Writers do need to have a decent level of
understanding. But what you said originally was that a writer must be 100%
responsible for their own work. That's great to say, and even to believe,
but when a technical error creeps in where an SME slipped up, it really
doesn't mean much for the TW to stand up and say "it's my fault." The TW did
their job to the best of their ability. The SME screwed up in this example,
just as happens from time-to-time in real life. Part of the skill a TW must
have is the ability to distill the knowledge or others into clear
communication, even if they don't have a 100% knowledge of the material.
>
> How can you in any way communicate effectively if you don't know the
material?
> You can't. It is impossible.

How are you defining "know"? You do need a basic understanding, but
sometimes you can manage with a *very* basic understanding if you have a
good grasp of logic, reason, and understand the art of communication well
enough. You once mentioned that a TW should be forced to take a course in
logic at some point. This familiarity with logic helps you to take material
you may not completely understand and still clearly communicate the intent.

BTW, if anyone would like to see one site that I enjoy about logic and
fallacies, check out:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

David Berg




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Learn how to develop HTML-based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver!
Dec. 7-8, 2000, Orlando, FL -- $100 discount for STC members.
http://www.weisner.com/training/dreamweaver_help.htm or 800-646-9989.

Your web site localized into 32 languages? Maybe not now, but sooner than 
you think. Download ForeignExchange's FREE paper, "3 steps to successful 
translation management" at http://www.fxtrans.com/3steps.html?tw.

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.