Re: Examination for Japanese tech communicators

[Robert Plamondon <robert -at- PLAMONDON -dot- COM>]

>Have you considered the possibility that "stereo instructions" might
>result from poor translations rather than poor technical writing. The
>original text in Japanese might have been quite acceptable. As we all know,
>people with excellent academic writing skills can still write terrible
>technical documents.  The same might apply to translators. A person skilled in
>translating general prose might not necessarily be skilled in translating
>instructions or poetry.

I don't think the distinction is important to the end-user.  When I'm
stuck in the boonies with a non-functioning truck, I don't care
whether Isuzu hired competent writers and incompetent translaters,
or incompetent writers and competent translators.  I'm still stuck
with a disorganized, incomplete, barely coherent manual, and it's
still Isuzu's fault.

It's not as if the export market is such an insignificant sideline
that Japanese manufacturers can make a case for not addressing it
systematically.  It's not as if Japanese manufacturers don't have
a presence in this country, from which to acquire local talent,
and from which to perform usability testing.

Some Japanese companies do a fine job.  But I wish Isuzu did as
good a job with their owner's manual for my Trooper II as Ford
did for my long-gone Pinto.

(Speaking of car owner's manuals, I still think that HOW TO KEEP
YOUR VW RABBIT ALIVE is one of the best pieces of technical
documentation ever written.)

        -- Robert