atw: Re: XML - a requirement for a TechWriter looking forwork?
- From: Caz.H <cazhart@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:14:49 +1000
Anyone can learn XML or Dreamweaver - or learn to be an IT nerd - if they're
so inclined, it's not especially any more difficult than learning how to use
general office software. As far as I'm aware there was a time when people
in offices suddenly had to learn how to use computers and learn about the
joys of the MS suite suite of software, not to mention new-fan-dangled
email.
For more than 15 years I've always had *people* to publish things, to do the
grunt work, when needed, which isn't very often. Most organisations have
entire sections to do the equivalent of comms/marketing, which always
includes looking after web pages, or desktop publishing, on the rare
occasion it might be needed (the overwhelming majority of business documents
are for internal use, so they rarely require the use of software beyond the
mundane Office suite, and anyone who really has no idea how to maintain
styles, versions, etc, is a bit of a twit, or brand new to the planet).
On the other hand, what I do can't be taught. That's why I get paid more
than the IT nerd. Always. And I primarily work in IT.
As for only doing "half" the job: in my working life I've never had a
contract or permanent role in which anyone has ever wanted or asked me to
waste my time - and their money - messing around with the form and funtion
of a document (although I can do that quite proficiently, if it was ever
needed).
Content is still king. If you have no content your pretty web page (I can
do those too), is rather pointless. If the content is wrong, inadequate,
shoddy, there's no form of publication that will compensate. I've recently
seen a 9 month project, involving dozens of people and uber-expensive
consultants, churn out sub-optimal results because form was obsessed over,
with content being tossed in right at the end. The material still hasn't
been "launched", and never will be in its current (clunky & ugly) form, nor
with it's current embarrassing woeful content. XML would not have saved it!
Formating and presenting material in some appropriate manner is important,
but it's an embedded given of the business need for content.
Interesting thread though. Obviously many different experiences and
perceptions. Hardly surpriseing: there are millions of jobs out there, and
even "tech writer" jobs are not cookie-cut, a fact of which we must all be
quietly very pleased.
CH
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Geoffrey Marnell
<geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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
> **************************************************
>
--
Carolyn Hart
Other related posts:
