atw: Re: Vale technical writing?

  • From: "Anthony Self" <ASelf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:28:01 +1100

Hi Geoffrey

In your past two e-mails, you have used the phrases "which you now
admit", and "by Tony's own admission", and in both cases I have made no
such claim or admission. I don't know how you manage to read so much
between the lines. If you read the actual words, the only time I used
the word "rhetorical" was to point out that *your* words, "Is Tony
really saying [*insert words Tony never wrote here*]?", were phrased (by
you) as a rhetorical question. Maybe my style of writing for a one
paragraph synopsis of what is meant to be a thought-provoking and
challenging discussion is rhetorical. I'm not really fussed. I don't see
using a rhetorical question as being a sin which deserves banishment
from the profession. However, I do get more fussed when words are
continually put into my mouth.

I couldn't find a challenge in your paragraph numbered one; all I read
was a hypothetical argument and a rhetorical question. It's a shame your
mind seems to be closed to anything I might say while you rage at things
you imagine I might say. 

The "any colour... so long as it is black" metaphor refers to "standard
processes, simple components, and standardised production systems". A
variation from standard induces an additional cost. As a profession,
technical communicators are being asked to do more in less time... in
other words, to be more efficient. When I was writing aircraft manuals
decades ago, the projects ran for about 18 months. The technical writers
at Nokia are documenting products that have a six month life cycle.
Efficiency requires compromise. When the customer says "I want a red
manual in two weeks", our response might be, "I can give you a red
manual in eight weeks or a black manual in two weeks... your choice". 

Tony



>>> "Geoffrey" 28/02/12 9:06 AM >>>


Tony

Have you ever thought that your style of writing *which you now admit to
being somewhat rhetorical*is just not suited to this profession. Maybe
it works in copy-writing and marketing. Silly me for reading your words
literally. 

And no, I know exactly what you mean when you talk about XML as an
enabling tool in publishing (and it would only be a duffer who might
have thought I was talking about the XML code the lies behind MS Word,
InDesign etc). I*ve been using Adobe FrameMaker to generate XML-tagged
documentation for donkey*s years (and SGML-tagged documentation before
that) and so I can attest from experience to the continuing problems in
generating decently formatted documents.

By the way, you haven*t addressed the challenge in my first numbered
paragraph: would you tell a client to bugger off and take black-only
documentation when they explicitly wanted green documentation or pink?
Or were you only being ironical, rhetorical, quasi-funny or whatever
when you made your claim that the age of customer choice is over?

Perhaps if you rewrote your outline in a way that gave the
literal-minded, intelligent reader no opportunity to misunderstand your
point, you would not only better reveal your skills as a professional
communicator, but also attract a few more folk to your talk. 

Dr Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd 
P: 03 9596 3456
M: 0419 574 668
F: 03 9596 3625
W: www.abelard.com.au



From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anthony Self
Sent: Monday, 27 February 2012 11:09 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Vale technical writing?



Hi Geoffrey (and austechies)



Wow! From one paragraph you've managed to divine my entire talk and
4,000 word essay from a mere one paragraph synopsis!



Just a few clarifications. 



>>(Henry Ford had a monopoly on the market; we don't.) <<



In 1898, Henry Ford's company made one car (called the Quadricycle). He
made another in 1899, and a third one in 1900. These cars were
hand-built. At the zenith of Model T production, one car rolled off the
assembly line every 60 seconds. As my talk explains, Henry Ford created
a mass market, but he never had a monopoly on the market. Before the
Model T, Belgium made more cars than the United States.



>> If XML publishing and DITA offered more efficient means of
documenting AND offered us readability and usability at least equal with
what our current methods offer us, perhaps we might sit up and listen.
But, by Tony's own admission, they do not.<<



You've put words into my mouth. I made no such admission in the one
paragraph synopsis. To the contrary, my talk explains how quality
improves in the move from hand-crafting to assembly line and automation.
Maybe it is time to "sit up and listen"?



>>is Tony really saying that the very best that XML and DITA will ever
be able to give us is one-colour-fits-all documentation?<<


I realise that this was a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it
anyway. No.



If you want to hear what I'm really saying, you can come along to the
talk, rather than guessing from a one paragraph synopsis and some random
preconceptions.



I don't mention XML publishing, and I think my definition of XML
publishing is very different to yours, Geoffrey. Microsoft Word uses an
XML file format, as does Adobe InDesign. These XML-based software tools
are used for hand-crafting documents. But they are not what I'm talking
about when I say that XML is an enabling platform for document
engineering and automation. Henry Ford found machine tools to be the
enabling technology for his change in the production process. XML is the
enabling technology for DITA, but DITA is a methodology (process) rather
than a technology. Just as Ford's assembly line was a process rather
than a technology.



Finally, back to your thinking that Ford had a monopoly. The car
"marques" that were around before the Ford Motor Company had made its
first car included Akron, American De Dion, Auburn, Baker Electric,
Buffalo, Canda, Clark Steam, Collins Electric, Hewitt-Lindstrom,
Peerless, and Searchmont. Heard of any of these? They went broke by
ignoring technological change, rejecting the new processes of their
competitors as inflexible, not bothering about efficiency, and offering
customers cars in any colour they wanted.



Cheers



Tony

Other related posts: