atw: Re: XML - a requirement for a TechWriter looking forwork?
- From: "Geoffrey Marnell" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:24:40 +1000
Oh when will the misinterpretations stop.
Yes, I did say that basic skills are TW requirements (skills like grammar,
punctuation and communicative efficacy); but I certainly did not say that
the only requirements are these basic skills. Of course TWs design
templates, build help systems, create graphical doodahs and do a myriad
things other than just communicating (although I am adamant that
communicating is the core skill, much more important than knowing any tool
or technology more advanced than a quill). Yes, these myriad other things
once were not, but now are, requirements for a good many technical writing
projects. Yes, we do more than writing and are *required* to do more than
writing, so let's lay that one to rest once and for all, please. I never
suggested otherwise.
But let's go back to the original question: is XML becoming a requirement to
be a TW. As a recruiter of technical writers myself, I can tell you quite
categorically that knowing XML is not a *requirement* for getting a job in
TW. (Peter Martin: you are working on one of my projects right now. Did I
test whether you knew XML before I offered you the job? No.) So let's lay
this one to rest too. Folks are getting plenty of work as TWs without
needing to prove that they know the slightest thing about XML.
Peter mentions a number of areas that are now considered important to know
(being evolving or even evolved requirements), such as:
<quote>
+ content storage,
+ structured authoring
+ content reuse
+ multi-language publication.
+ document control systems
+ knowledge management and content management systems
</quote>
I agree that a significant sub-set of plasticising TWs work in these fields
(or their work involves these fields in part); and yes, in many cases the
underlying technology is XML-based. And I agree that TWs with an eye on
their career prospects should keep an eye on these areas (just as they
should keep an eye on accessibility issues: as per yesterdays posting). But
again, I ask the question: do you need to know XML (know all about schemas,
namepsaces, data types and so on and so) to be competent practitioners in
these fields or with these tools. And the answer is clearly no.
For a start, structured authoring precedes XML by decades, and structured
authoring is often undertaken merely to apply discipline to authors, not to
generate XML. Content reuse: well, FrameMaker users have been doing this
forever with text insets and conditional text. (And people have been sharing
documents for years, copying and pasting as they please: the simplest form
of content reuse and all without needing to know a single thing about XML.)
Multi-language application: again with conditional text in FrameMaker
authors can send multiple versions of one file-set to the translators (and
in these cases, conditional tags act just like XML attributes). My company
has been doing this more than a decade, and not an iota of XML knowledge is
needed. Document control systems: we've had them for years: VSS, CVS,
ClearCase, and none involve any XML knowledge. And so on, and so on.
XML technologies might provide the underlying framework for the tools we now
use, but mostly XML does not need to be understood by the practitioner.
(Yes, there are technical writers documenting server configuration
processes, APIs and the like where knowledge of XML may be necessary). But
as Christine Kent rightly pointed out, this is just one niche among many in
the TW fields. The fact that some plasticising TWs do need to know XML does
not in the slightest imply that to be a practicing TW you need to know XML.
Do we say that because some physicians are neurosurgeons, then *all*
physicians must have an intimate knowledge of the anatomy of the brain? MY
GP certainly doesn't. Have I wasted my money seeking his advice regarding
conjunctivitis?
And one last furphy to lay to rest: even if it is the case that knowing the
nitty gritty of HTML or XML can help us fix the occasional bug, this doesn't
mean that it is requirement to know HTML or XML to make it in TW. To borrow
Peter Martin's analogy, it might help me limp my over-heated car to the
nearest servo if I know where the radiator cap is, but I don't need to know
this to know how to drive the damn thing.
As for the future: well we used to hard code formatting in the very early
days of word-processing (think CTOS running on Burroughs B25 micros). We
would type \b and b\ to indicate the start and end of bolded text, all in a
non-WYSIWIG environment. Happily the human race has bred folk who love to
make things easier for others; so now we have GUI dialogs to give us
one-click formatting without the need to know anything about the underlying
framework. The same happened with HTML (much to the pleasure of those who
were hand-tagging HTML in Notepad). And the same is happening with XML. In
FrameMaker I can click elements and apply attributes as easily as clicking
styles in the style palette in MS Word. Did I waste my time learning XML.
No, I quite enjoyed it. Do I need to remember what I learnt? No; those nice
code-cutting folk have made that unnecessary. And thus my advice to people
who want to break into TW: know what XML is by all means, but don' waste
your time getting your hands dirty under the bonnet. And to those who want
to specialise as "documentation technicians" (the neurosurgeons of
documentation), by all means go ahead and get your hands dirty. Just don't
make the poor sods ignorant of XML quake about their lack of XML knowledge
and think they won't make it as a TW. they can, and probably 95% of all TWs
do.
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: Friday, 12 September 2008 1:24 PM
To: snason@xxxxxxxxxxx; austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: XML - a requirement for a TechWriter looking forwork?
>
>
>
>---- Original Message ----
>From: snason@xxxxxxxxxxx
>To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: atw: Re: XML - a requirement for a TechWriter looking
>forwork?
>Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:19:28 +1000
>
>>I think some of you are confusing the art of writing with the act of
>publishing.
>>
I think this gets close to crystallising one of the main issues here.
Leaving aside the use of "art" as a term above, the point is that job
requirements-cum-expectations for people in various occupations (or
professions or guilds) continue to expand and change.
You can write beautiful technical documentation in plain text anytime you
want to.
BUT...
You are expected / required these days to know how to use what used
to be called a "word processor". Few employers want just beautiful
words in plain text format. They mostly wouldn't know how to "publish" plain
text and want someone to do the publication preparation for them as an
essential part of the job. (Some seem to think the +only+ thing tech writers
actually do is reformat stuff in Word so that it looks nice.)
"Desktop publishing" skills have been required of technical writers for
decades now.
AND ... being able to use drawing tools and add diagrams to your text seems
to be listed fairly frequently in "criteria" statements these days...
"Requirements" for jobs change over time, whether you think there's
some sort of demarcation dispute involved or not... There used to
be wharfies, crane drivers, truckies, storemen, packers etc on the
waterfront. These days, the jobs run into each other all the time.
And new ones are added.
Some of us are suggesting that similar things are happening for a
significant group of technical writers in areas such as
+ content storage,
+ structured authoring
+ content reuse
+ multi-language publication.
+ document control systems
+ knowledge management and content management systems
And this is extending in areas such as
+ documenting IT programs
+ systems configuration, and
+ inter-process messaging.
ALL of these are now domains in which XML is increasingly dominant as a
background framework.
Sure, knowing something about XML is not COMPULSORY for ALL.
Nor is knowing Word, or FrameMaker, or AuthorIT etc etc, for that matter.
But what's a "requirement" in the future ? It's what employers are
going to want and expect.
A philosopher, Geoffrey, might suggest:
Basic skills are requirements, but not all requirements are basic skills.
And of course, Nikki's original post actually asked about two things.
To quote her 2 key sentences in stages:
>I just thought it rather interesting that "Learn XML" is becoming
part
>of a requirement for a Tech Writer who is looking for work.
>Please can you let me know your thoughts on this...
And then:
>...and why you think XML
> is essential to being a Tech Writer.
Some want to deny the latter. I want to affirm the former.
-Peter M
**************************************************
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:
