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: Basic rules of technical writing From:Joseph J Little <litt0023 -at- MAROON -dot- TC -dot- UMN -dot- EDU> Date:Sun, 25 Dec 1994 05:21:10 GMT
Chris Benz wrote:
>> The Golden Rules of Writing
>> 1. Make it understandable.
>> 2. Make it consistent, unless that interferes with Rule 1.
>> 3. Make it grammatically correct, unless that interferes with Rule 1 or 2.
>> 4. Make it technically correct, unless that interferes with Rule 1, 2, or
>> 3.
>> Chris Benz
>> Author, Technical Writer, Computer Trainer
>> 6229438 -at- mcimail -dot- com
Chris,
I don't agree with the placement of Rule 4. Are you saying that
technical accuracy takes a back seat to understandability? If,
by explaining a phenomenon (say, atomic fission) correctly, it
would be hard for an audience to understand, I should solve this
problem by explaining the topic in an understandable yet
incorrect manner? This seems outrageous. Why would your ultimate
goal be to make something understandable if what is being made
understandable is incorrect (not technically accurate)? This
notion seems to be accomplishing two wrong things: first, you
are not educating your audience correctly, and second, you are
educating your audience on an incorrect topic. How do you
explain this?
