Re: Yahoo has no staff tech writers

[Jeff Hanvey <jeff -at- jewahe -dot- net>]

--- Andrew Plato <gilliankitty -at- yahoo -dot- com> wrote:
>Actually, I have not been burned by writers in the past. All of the writers I
>have worked with were outstanding people who worked hard and generally did
>outstanding work. 

But your opinion does not suggest that.

> But, I also make sure that I hired folks and trained them to
>work under a different paradigm. One where technical expertise was not optional,
>it was mandatory. 

This is good and necessary. I respect that.

>Own a business, that has ranged from 2 to 20 employees for 8 years and it will
>fundamentally change your opinion on people.  
>
>I used to be like you. I used to believe people were decent folks. Then I started
>managing them. And I quickly realized that many people don't want to work hard.
>They just want to get a paycheck and get out.  

You'll never convince me of that. I have always worked with people who are interested in the quality of their work. Yes, there are times when they slacked, and there are times when they underperformed and made mistakes - that's life. It seems to me, however, that you are generalizing from the exceptions and not the rule. 

One other factor I've noticed: if the person doesn't really like their job, then they will be more likely to act as you described. Perhaps there are more people than I realize who are dissatisfied with their jobs, but I can't imagine that to be the case. Most of these people eventually wash out - admittedly, the washing process can be painful. But, still, I firmly believe that the majority of people are conscientious about their jobs and want to go well.

Which is fine if you work at some
>big pointless organization where results are optional. But at a small to medium
>sized business, underperforming people are disastrous.

Agreed, but only on the end. Results are never optional, and those who don't get results, don't do their jobs, will eventually be washed out.

>
>Actually that isn't true either. I've hired probably two dozen writers over the
>past few years. And of them none were fresh outta college (FOCs). Most were 1 to
>2 years into their profession - and hungry for a challenge. And that's what I
>give them, a real challenge. And some of the writers at my company have gone on
>to other contracts where they DOMINATED their group because they had come out of
>an environment where they were honestly challenged. One writer just recently
>contacted me with funny stories of how his fellow writers were about 1000 light
>years behind him in their tech skills. When layoff day came, they were all let go
>and he was the ONLY writer retained. 

I'm not denying that there is a decided lack of tech skills in our profession. I also believe that the skills are necessary. Where I disagree is that *every* writer has to come to *every* job fully knowledgable about the technology.

The challenge is to get the training and be productive at the same time. That's not easy.

The problem is that the technical training defaults to the company. Most companies don't want this expense, so they look for the technologically savvy - and determine who stays and who goes based on this. If you want to be marketable, learn a technology. 

Even someone 1 or 2 years out of college, if s/he hasn't been with a company willing to train, will still lack the technical knowledge.

>> The reality of technical writing is threefold:
>> 
>> 1. Technical knowledge (but not necessarily technical mastery)
>> 2. Tools knowledge
>> 3. Writing ability
> 
>I would agree with your list. But I would insist on a certain level of "mastery".

Of course.

>> Lack of *any* of the three will cause the writer to struggle endlessly in the
>> field. We're already seeing the results: specific job descriptions, quick
>> dismissal of people without specific knowledge, et cetera
>
>I agree with you completely. But, most writers lack #1. And since that is the
>most important aspect of their work, you would think it would gain some more
>attention. But, it doesn't.

I'm not sure I agree. I think the most important thing is the bridge - putting the technology into words. 
>Grammar and tools are easy to learn. Grammar should come from grade school and
>tools can be learned anytime. 

LOL. If grammar were truly "easy," then anyone could write a clear sentence without the fuss, and there would be no need for people who are specifically trained in language (including tech writers and editors).

Also, tools cannot be learned anytime. Companies make a strong distinction between recreational use of tools (boy, there's a phrase) and professional use of them. They want proven productivity. So, while padding your resume with a few FrameMaker docs will be good, it doesn't guarantee to the company that you know the program and can be productive with it immediately. And that's what it is about: immediate productivity.
>Actually, tech writing is quite old. Its been around for eons. And once upon a
>time, a technical writer was expected to be highly skilled in the topic he/she
>was documenting. 

I'm not denying any of that. But tech writing has always been done by a few people in a few fields who would write for specific audiences with  similar background to their own. They didn't have the challenge of documenting a program that could be used by anyone from a beginner to an expert, worrying about non-native speakers, et cetera.

I'll not deny that writers obsess over grammar and templates. I am saying that it is part of our jobs to consider them (though not obsessively). Also, with the complexity of modern businesses, programs, networks, et cetera, you just can't find a person who has the knowledge of the system *and* can write. That's why we rely on SME's. Yes, there should be an ability to go it alone, but even programmers ask each other for help from time to time, and need help figuring out what they are supposed to be coding at times. 

While I agree that the writer should be able to go in alone most of the time, I don't agree that s/he should go it alone *all* the time. There's a certain amount of explanations necessary.

>Its easy to paint me as the bad guy, Jeff. I'm loud, I'm opinionated, and I use a
>lot of emotionally charged words. I do that for a reason. It incites thought and
>discussion. But don't confuse my methods with my words. 

I certainly don't agree with your methods. Goading isn't the way to debate. State your opinion, use facts to back it up, but avoid the "emotionally charged words." All that does is paint you as a bully.

>Lastly, I want to remind everybody that Yahoo posted huge profits today spurring
>a massive buying spree in the tech sector. So, to reiterate - clearly their "we
>don't need tech writers" isn't hurting their business. 
>
>I personally love Yahoo. Its simple, easy, and it runs on BSD, which should make
>you open-source-heads really happy. 

I do, too. Unless something goes wrong. Then, trying to get it fixed is an exercise in frustration.


Jeff

_____________________________________________________________
Jeff Hanvey: http://www.jewahe.net

_____________________________________________________________
Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get you -at- yourchoice -dot- com w/No Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All-new RoboHelp X3 is now shipping! Get single sourcing, print-quality
documentation, conditional text and much more, in the most monumental
release ever. Save $100! Order online at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l

Buy ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 6.0, the most powerful SINGLE SOURCE HELP
AUTHORING TOOL for MS Word. SAVE $100 on the full version and $50 on the
upgrade.  Offer ends 10/31/2002 (code: DTH102250).
http://www.componentone.com/d2hlist1002

---
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.