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.
Kris (KJOlberg -at- AOL -dot- COM) uses the phrase "different subject matters" to describe
the wide variety of systems (e.g., sales tracking, CD/retirement, security) she
documented for a bank.
This isn't quite how I've been understanding the concept of subject matter
expertise.
Maybe part of the reason we're seeing such a wide range of opinions on the
level of SM expertise we need, is that we're basing our opinions on all sorts
of different understandings of what expertise *is*.
So...
When we discuss the technical background a TW needs or doesn't need, what
specifically are we talking about? Knowing how to document, say,
computer-related stuff? software? application software? Database applications?
Personnel databases? Or knowing how to develop/program [which one]? Or knowing
how [which one] is designed, conceptually? Or having power-used a wide variety
of [which one]?... Or what? How specific? How technical?
Stacey Kahn
SKahn -at- wb -dot- com
speaking for myself and not for my employers
