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.
Subject:RE: craft vs. science From:Phil Levy <PLevy -at- epion -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:09:45 -0400
This makes no sense:
"You can be documenting how a toaster works, or
you can be polarizing atoms in a vacuum... wild cards
abound. "
The technology in the two products you mention differs, but the "mechanics
behind the process" of documenting these products can be exactly the same. I
would think that you, a scientific tech writer, would agree.
-----Original Message-----
From: Goober [mailto:techcommgoober -at- yahoo -dot- com]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 2:53 PM
To: Phil Levy; TECHWR-L
Subject: craft vs. science
--- Phil Levy <PLevy -at- epion -dot- com> wrote:
> >the vast differences from company to company and
> >workflow to workflow.
>
> This may be another topic altogether, but these
> differences are usually
> neither vast nor valid. This is the main reason that
> tech writing is still a
> craft and not an engineering discipline.
Ooohhh... A tantilizingly tasty tidbit for fun Friday
frolicking. *lol*
OK, we see what we do as craft and not science,
apparently. I wonder how true mechanical engineers see
their jobs (I bet craft).
Anyway, no matter what you do, there are wild cards at
play. You can be documenting how a toaster works, or
you can be polarizing atoms in a vacuum... wild cards
abound. It's the nature of the world.
So what?
Well, I see what I do as science. Why? Because I have
a process. If it were craft, I'd be King Workaround,
Lord of the Makeshifts. *lol* All IMO, of course. But
I stick to a tried and true method of writing
documentation, one that's taken me years to perfect.
It's basically common sense wrapped into a workflow,
but if I marketed it I'd have to call it something
other than Information Mapping. *lol*
Anyway, HOW you approach a documentation task can be
applied to multiple projects, but the mechanics behind
the process (not grammar mechanics) are bound to
change.
The differences *can* be perfectly valid (as they are
vast). One company might rely on seat of the pants
documentation because they are too small to do
anything substantial. Other companies might
single-source from a database workflow full of
rigidity in style and structure because they can
afford to do so.
Thoughts on any of this?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Check out RoboDemo for tutorials! It makes creating full-motion software
demonstrations and other onscreen support materials easy and intuitive.
Need RoboHelp? Save $100 on RoboHelp Office in May with our mail-in rebate.
Go to http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.
---
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.
