Re: **Defining Tech Comm*

Subject: Re: **Defining Tech Comm*
From: Barb Philbrick <barb -dot- philbrick -at- PCOHIO -dot- COM>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 17:12:00 -0500

WK>>So, if we were to compile a set of rules which all good
WK>>technical communicators were to comply with, what would they be?

WK>I teach a class in tech. writing to engineers, and one of the things
WK>I stress to them is simplicity. While the concepts they are
WK>describing are certainly complicated, the sentence structure does not
WK>have to be convoluted and difficult to understand. "Write to your
WK>reader as if they were sitting across the desk from you."

One thing I would add to this: Make sure the user *needs* to know the
information. Engineers spend a lot of time developing nifty designs that
are invisible to the user. They want to tell everyone about this, but
the users generally don't care.


barb -dot- philbrick -at- pcohio -dot- com
~ CMPQwk 1.4 #9107 ~ And God said: E = 2mv2 - Ze2/r ...and there *WAS* light!

PC-Ohio PCBoard PO Box 21411
The Best BBS in America South Euclid OH 44121
DATA: 216-381-3320 FAX: 216-291-2685

Previous by Author: Icons for Cautions, Warni
Next by Author: Re[2]: Make It Pretty
Previous by Thread: This is for Dan Lupo
Next by Thread: Re: **Defining Tech Comm*

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads