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.
Re: "The World of Technical Communication and Writing"
Subject:Re: "The World of Technical Communication and Writing" From:Chris Despopoulos <despopoulos_chriss -at- yahoo -dot- com> To:"techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:12:38 +0000 (UTC)
Rick Lippincott said:Lots of stuff, summed up with:I think the context of the line provides enough clarity for the
definition, as well as limits to it.
This in response to my objection to "...communicating about..."
Rick, I think you miss my point. I don't mind the word (or concept) "communication". What I object to is the usage. You do not communicate "about" anything, unless you mean a series of exchanged communications... A conversation. Frankly, I doubt that's what they had in mind (given the context).Â
Instead of "..communicating about..." X, the line should read "...communication of X". As a technical writer your product is the communication of technical concepts. Your product is not communication "about" these concepts -- that happens as a *result* of your product. The construct they used properly and semantically allows a lunch discussion to be called technical communication, which blows their context out of the water.
Why does this bother me? Because the STC, when crafting a definition, should be more precise if they want credibility in the field -- and they can be simply by using "communicate" correctly. Of course, it's all too easy to let such a mistake fall through the editorial process. We've all done it. And I hope we've all had boneheads (like I'm being here) to point out the error.ÂÂ
cud
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Learn more about Adobe Technical Communication Suite (2015 Release) | http://bit.ly/1FR7zNW
