atw: Re: Is the computer really a paradigm shift?: a lament
- From: "Geoffrey Marnell" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:50:45 +1000
Peter, I meet your sigh and raise it.
<sigh><squared>
Did I ever say that no tech writer (TW) should ever be curious, that no TW
should explore regular expressions, that no TW should explore DITA and dita
maps, that no TW should consider with XML, that no TW should avoid reading
Euclid, and so on? Let's stick to the script. And in doing so, let's
illuminatingly extend Christine Kent's smart dissection of technical writing
into niches. Let's extend it to splitting technical writers into seniors and
juniors. (Ugly and blunt, perhaps; but it will do...and not least because it
sticks to the source of this thread.)
Now, I am all I favour of seniors like you and I (and even would-be seniors)
exploring everything there is to explore about TW, and pushing the
boundaries (and even the envelope: DL or otherwise). It's interesting to do
so; it can be exciting; it can lead to new methodologies; and it keeps us
away from the TV footy and from Coldplay's latest laser-cutting.
But let's go back to the start of this thread and ask about the juniors.
Some day they too will be pushing the envelope: but until then let's not
make them feel that they have to be seniors (or would-be seniors) from day
one. All the workplace scenarios that you list are cases of the
serendipitous application of non-essential knowledge, knowledge that you
have picked up over many years of experience, exercised curiosity and hard
study. Yes, you probably did save me some time on one of my projects because
you knew how to interpret a few snippets of XML you accidentally found on
the client's server. Thank you very much. I do, and I mean it, appreciate
that. But that's what I expect of senior writers. That's why I pay you
considerably more than the juniors I employ. You have earned your keep ;-)
But the juniors we all desperately need to bring in to this profession
shouldn't feel that they need to be as smart or as knowledgeable as us
seniors from day one. Give them time; give them guidance; give them
challenges. But don't thwart their entry into this profession with
hyperbolic rot about needing to know, from day one, what we seniors have
picked up over many years: especially when so much of it is incidental, of
uncertain longevity and of immediate relevance to only a handful of
deep-pocketed multi-nationals with huge writings teams. (I'm with Hedley on
this point.)
Yes, I too would like Nikki, and all others who are passionate about the
dissemination of practical knowledge, "to follow [their] curiosity". We
definitely need smart, knowledgeable folk in this profession to take over
from old farts like you and I, Peter, when we kick the bucket. (Which is why
I have always supported the Swinburne course, despite some innuendoes to the
contrary that have appeared on this list.)
But the truly important issue here is what is *necessary* to get you started
in this industry. Perspective time: you can know all there is about XML,
dita maps, schemas, regular expressions and even the Black-Scholes formula
(if you wish to avoid immediate relevancy, as some contributors to this
thread have)...but if you can't write with communicative efficacy, if you
can't tell a transition word from a restrictive relative clause, if you
can't get your message across to your intended audience without them having
to work out what you meant, then you will fail as a technical writer.
Language first; technology and tools later. (Which is not, Peter, the same
as *language only*, as per your earlier interpretation of my views.) That's
the message I've been trying to get across during this thread. Become a guru
at giving Plain-English renditions of XML code snippets if you like (maybe
at the Glebe RSL Club on their Alternate Poetry Reading Wednesday
Stanzathons); but if you can't write simple plain utilitarian
audience-centric English, a bank tellers job awaits thee: even if you happen
to know grep and even grep's little sister. If you can write well, you've
got a future in technical writing; but if all you know is a technology, it
won't be long before you need to know another technology and then another.
(Ask a COBOL programmer. Ask someone who learnt how to vacuum-pump a cloud
chamber. Ask a retired night-cart driver.) That's the starting point for a
career in TW: writing well; and that's the starting point of this thread.
Remember?
<end of sigh>
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: (+61 3) 9596 3456
F: (+61 3) 9596 3625
W: http://www.abelard.com.au
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 17 September 2008 6:27 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Is the computer really a paradigm shift?: a lament
<sigh>
Once more unto the breach. Briefly.
Geoffrey, it matters not if it's a new paradigm.
For me, the major difference between us is one of emphasis.
You want to assure people they don't +have+ to read up about XML to be
techwriters, and to warn them of the puffery.
I want to encourage them to read up about XML if they are or plan to be
techwriters, and to learn to assess, accept, reject or ignore the puffery
that goes with the territory.
In general, I think:
a.) Being a techwriter is about being curious, and continuing to be curious,
even for the best writer of simple English in the world.
I knew-that
b.) Learning about XML has been of use to me. On the job I'm working on for
you, I think it's been of use for you too, because last week I saved a bit
of time when SMEs were busy, to dig up relevant facts
buried in bits of XML. In some other jobs, it has saved days and
days of work, not just hours.
Sure regular expression knowledge helped too, but that's not a
paradigm shift either...
(In fact, add regexes to the things tech writers don't need necessarily but
can use to save hours of effort. Maybe Nikki should have a look there, too,
if she hasn't already.)
You might not find many employers who start off thinking these are
requirements, but I've worked for a few now who seem to have been happy
enough to accept the favourable results if and when they happened to come
their way.
c.) I think the XML things that Hedley outlined in his most recent post on
the topic are of continuing relevance to all of us, even if:
+ they currently have greatest effects on large doc systems; they are
+ never quite what they are often hyped up to be; and their SGML and
+ DocBook predecessors never quite got off the ground.
d.) I particularly think it's important to look at things like ditamaps and
conrefs and similar goodies to AND to contemplate the changes that some say
are needed for simple writing styles in an extensive content-reuse system.
This latter may be the most important thing for some. I still have doubts
about it. But I think the exercise involved in contemplating the different,
"context-free" approach to simple writing is worth a bit of time and
thought.
And I'm sorry, the old cut-and-paste answer to this really ignores
maintenance problems of significant dimensions. That appoach risks becoming
cut-and-paste and find-all-instances-and-fix-them and
hope-you-didn't-miss-any.
And were you +serious+ about extensive conditional text use in FrameMaker?
shheeesh !
e.) I think it's important to consider what happens when people who write
and read in non-ASCII languages become dominant consumers and authors of
large slabs of text that might once have been written or read in simple
English, and only translated after years of
painstaking work. And I think XML or one of its children or
successors is likely to be a part of that.
So I'd urge Nikki to follow her curiosity. Get off to
http://w3.schools.com and whip through the basics. It never hurts.
And a
little knowledge is never really nearly as dangerous as simple ignorance.
Next the regex ?
--Peter M
>>
>>Nice one Peter. But I do wonder why you added
>>
>>"I know some old writers who wrote between tags What a bunch of old
>>dags, To write between tags"
>>
>>Given the threads that drove this little ditty, I'm sure there are
>some
>>on
>>this list who will read this as intimating, just, that Marnell is an
>>anti-tagging Luddite.
>>
>>Well, surprised you might be to hear that I think tagging content is
>>damn good...for what you can do with it. It's a means-and-ends issue,
>this
>>one.
>>Tagging text (or structured authoring, if you wish) is just a means
>to
>>something else. On it's own it is pretty dull. And it's not new.
>We've
>>been
>>doing it forever (if only mentally until fairly recently, when SGML
>>appeared). Yes, we once used SGML to tag content, but it flopped
>because
>>there were not a lot of interesting things you could do with it.
>>
>>No, my beef is not with tagging. My beef is with all the hype and
>>puffery.
>>I'm sorry folks, but tagging text is not a paradigm shift (even if
>web
>>publishing, for example, is a paradigm shift). We've tagged forever
>(the
>>means); but now, at last, we are doing some fascinating things with
>it
>>(the
>>ends) and we are on the verge of doing some even more fascinating
>things
>>with it. And I'm happy to say that even through a lot of those
>>spruiking the benefits of, say, DITA forget (or are ignorant of the
>>fact) that
>for
>>long-term FrameMaker users, a lot of the supposedly new stuff on the
>>horizon has been available for donkeys years. We've used it; it's
>>good; but
>it's
>>not
>>earth-shattering, nor will be.
>>
>>Yes, folks, bring on DITA and then bring on its daughters and sons.
>But
>>just
>>temper the hype and the puffery. It's hard enough finding enough
>>technical writers these days; it will only be harder if we scare off
>>would-be writers with such hyperbolic nonsense that they need to know
>>XML to get into
>the
>>market and then have to learn a new paradigm-shifting writing
>>methodology.
>>They don't and they won't.
>>
>>
>>Geoffrey Marnell
>>Principal Consultant
>>Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
>>T: (+61 3) 9596 3456
>>F: (+61 3) 9596 3625
>>W: http://www.abelard.com.au
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>>peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Sent: Tuesday, 16 September 2008 8:07 AM
>>To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: atw: Is the computer really a paradigm shift?: a lament
>>
>>I know some old writers who wrote with a stick I don't why they
>wrote
>>with a
>>stick Perhaps they were sick.
>>
>>I know Babylonians who wrote in the clay And figured and jiggled and
>>squiggled all day.
>>They wrote in the clay without a burnt stick.
>>They must have been thick
>>To abandon the stick
>>Perhaps they were sick.
>>
>>I know some Egyptians who flattened a reed What a way to proceed To
>then
>>write on the reed!
>>
>>They wrote on the reed to replace the clay...
>>To stop all that jiggling and squiggling all day..
>>They wrote on the clay to replace the stick But I don't know why
>they
>>abandoned the stick Perhaps they were sick....
>>
>>I know some Chinese who wrote onto paper What sort of a vapour Do
>you
>>sniff
>>to invent paper ?
>>
>>They wrote on the paper to replace the reed. They wrote on the the
>reed
>>in
>>place of the clay. To stop all that jiggling and squiggling all day.
>
>>They wrote on the clay to replace the stick. But I don't know why
>they
>>abandoned the stick Perhaps they were sick.
>>
>>I know some old Germans who printed from type What a great hype All
>that
>>moveable type
>>
>>They printed from type to get books with great speed..
>>And used vellum and paper instead of the reed. They wrote on the
>reed to
>>replace the clay. To stop all that jiggling and squiggling all day..
>>They wrote on the clay to replace the stick. But I don't know why
>they
>>abandoned the stick Perhaps they were sick.
>>
>>I know some old clerks who wrote on a card How avant-garde!
>>To write on a card!
>>
>>They wrote on the card to sort the books..
>>They printed the book to bundle the paper..
>>They wrote on the paper to replace the reed. They wrote on the reed
>to
>>replace the clay. To stop all that jiggling and squiggling all
>day...
>>They wrote on the clay to replace the stick...
>>But I don't know why they abandoned the stick Perhaps they were
>sick.
>>
>>I know some old writers who wrote between tags What a bunch of old
>dags,
>>To
>>write between tags.
>>
>>They wrote inside tags to replace the cards...
>>They wrote in the cards to sort the books. They wrote in the books
>to
>>bundle
>>the paper. They wrote on the paper to replace the reed. They wrote
>on
>>the
>>reed to replace the clay. To stop all that jiggling and squiggling
>all
>>day...
>>They wrote on the clay to replace the stick...
>>But I don't know why they abandoned the stick Perhaps they were
>sick.
>>
>>I know some old writers who read XML source.
>>They are sick, of course.
>>
>>
>>--Peter M in memory of Geoffrey's youthful curiosity..
>>
>>
>>
>>**************************************************
>>To view the austechwriter archives, go to
>>www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
>>
>>To unsubscribe, send a message to
>austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>with
>>"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
>>
>>To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION
>>modes)
>>go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
>>
>>To contact the list administrator, send a message to
>>austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>**************************************************
>>
>>**************************************************
>>To view the austechwriter archives, go to
>>www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
>>
>>To unsubscribe, send a message to
>austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>with "unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
>>
>>To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION
>>modes) go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
>>
>>To contact the list administrator, send a message to
>>austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>**************************************************
>>**************************************************
>>To view the austechwriter archives, go to
>www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
>>
>>To unsubscribe, send a message to
>austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the Subject
>field (without quotes).
>>
>>To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION
>modes) go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
>>
>>To contact the list administrator, send a message to austechwriter-a
>dmins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>**************************************************
>>
**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes)
go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go
to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
Other related posts:
