Re[2]: Technical Writing Problems

[doug montalbano <doug_montalbano -at- CC -dot- CHIRON -dot- COM>]

     Lori (Moore, Freebird) comments upon the ancecdote of
     Lori (Lathrop, Indexer):

   LL his response to my request for feedback was, "Oh, it's
   LL great!  Just what we needed!"  I then asked him if he
   LL could respond to the questions I'd written as
   LL DEVELOPMENT NOTES throughout the draft.  His response
   LL was, "Ah, well, um, questions?  Can I call you back
   LL tomorrow?"

   LM AMEN!  I just don't get it!  How can these guys say the
   LM document is "just what we needed" when it's full of
   LM questions and other vacancies in information?!  Now
   LM THAT's a problem!

     I would suspect that what the developer meant was that, from HIS
     point of view, everything was fine because "documentation" exists.
     That particular pressure on him is off.  He doesn't care about the
     completeness or correctness of the doc, or at least not as much as
     he cares about its existence.

     It's been my experience that this conflict -- between a manager's
     view of a document's purpose and a writer's view of its purpose --
     is a never-ending and fairly widespread one.  Just another
     milestone on a project Gannt chart, or user tool?

     doug_montalbano -at- cc -dot- chiron -dot- com