Journal Entry for Jan.28
Business communication is a topic I don’t know much about. However, the importance of context when it comes to writing is a situation all writers have some knowledge about. Context is determined by many things- lifestyle, experience, knowledge, audience, and so on. Based on what Driskill is saying, in business writing, it is more about the existing writing situation or context, and the most appropriate course of action.
Page 59 talks about external sources of meaning and internal sources of meaning. It talks about the internal sources being more influential on the writers than external sources, as internal sources come directly from the goal or mission statement of the company. These companies usually know what works for them and what doesn’t. External sources, on the other hand, are relative. They can be interpreted and used as the writer sees fit. From a writer’s and a student’s point of view, writing assignments for a course have a similar function, as external sources in the mutual funds industry. The internal sources and what the teacher wants or instructs are synonymous. These internal sources “affect virtually every document” or piece of assignment that is written. In order to get an “A-paper reaction” from my teacher, I must follow his explicit instructions.
Internal and external sources, placed in context, will affect writers in companies, classrooms, even newspapers. So, it seems more prudent to have a mix of the two.
Quotes I found interesting:
“Communication in organizational contexts is essential to the vitality, and even to the survival, of organizations and society in a technical era.”
“Individuals are sources of meaning and their preferences can affect writing practices.”
“The “subject” or “topic” is not context-free, but situated, involved in what the members of the organization must know, feel, or believe in order to accomplish their goals.”
The article “Making a Guide with Style” is quite relevant for me, as I have to utilize various writing styles for the different articles I write. Working at the newspaper, we are instructed to use AP style, so within that organization, it would be ‘web site.’
In academic writing, I find it easier to use APA style, as it seems more organized than MLA, and it also makes my writing flow better. When writing for magazines, such as Go Riverwalk, they usually use Chicago style in their writing. For each organization, there is a required format.
CTC creating its own manual or style guide seems logical to me because of the many formatting styles out there; employees will probably get overwhelmed or constantly be asking questions, such as ‘is it web site, Website or website.’
To have a set structure or model for employees to follow in an organization sets the standards for those employees, which benefits the organization, in creating optimal quality work, and takes some of the stress off the writers.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Journal Entry for Jan. 21
For a writer, the audience ought to the focal point of his/her thinking process, as the whole point of writing an article or book is for someone to read it. If the writer is simply writing to release energy or put thoughts on paper, then obviously an audience will not be important. “In Audience Involved: Toward a Participatory Model of Writing,” Johnson mentions audience being seen as “addressed” or “invoked,” within the writing process.
The audience gets lost in the writing process at times, as today the audience is so diverse that it is virtually impossible to address the needs of every reader. Therefore, many readers seek alternative or supplemental reference or knowledge sources, other than reading books. To remedy this issue, Johnson introduces a concept that “[discusses] acts of collaboration that involve the audience directly in the discourse production process- what [he] terms audience involved.” It seems rather idealistic that Johnson would encourage the users of written materials to be a part of the writing/production process. Most people don’t care how something gets done; all they are truly interested in is the end product, and the effectiveness of it. If it is in a classroom setting, then the rules are very different, as it will be a learning process for all the parties involved. In the work environment, if the users are themselves overwhelmed with their responsibilities, they might think the technical writer inefficient if he/she asks for their participation. Johnson even mentions the view that some personnel have of technical writers that they “merely “write up”the knowledge of designers and developers.” I will assume that many developers tell the technical writer what it is they are looking for re: the documentation process and that it isn’t solely on the technical writer. So will the technical writer then have to decide whose needs are more important, the developers or the audience? I believe sometimes that the two expectations contradict, so whose side should the technical writer take?
It becomes clearer to me why the field of technical communication is continuously evolving. Audiences at time get lost in the usability of a text, which will be seen as the fault of the technical writer. To broaden the scope of the technical writer and place of technology, in terms of creating websites, maps, brochures, digital versions of written materials create a place for more audience members than only words on paper can.
In “Relocating the Value of Work: Technical Communication in a Post-Industrial Age” Johnson-Eilola discusses the place of technical communication in a post-industrial age; today’s world. She mentions what the overview of technical communication ought to be in this era, where information is much more in demand and valuable than the products. She states that it would be better to “rearticulate technical communication as a post-industrial discipline, with documentation blurring into other areas…” The real value of technical communication is seen when users can adequately follow the technical support instructions of the technical writer and get tasks done. (I’m unsure of whether to say “technical writer” or “technical communicator.” Is there a difference between the two?) However, Johnson-Eilola discusses how corporations see technical communicators as secondary support and not primary support. The primary support team is kept up to date with the production progress and changes to be better equipped to communicate to the users an effective usability manual/instruction/digital design. Johnson-Eilola and many of the authors I’ve read so far believe that this ought to be the case with all technical communicators.
My initial and existing thoughts of, ‘what is the purpose of a technical communicator’ seems to be constantly changing. I was under the impression that technical communicators are at the behest of the developers. But based on my understanding, the readings place technical communicators in more of an authoritative role, where the technical communicator has the responsibility to create usable documents for the users based on the concerns (or lack thereof) expectations, ethnography, ethics, and the list goes on. So, I am very confused as to why the technical communicator’s role is so devalued? How can the work of a technical writer not be taken seriously?
I think with communication being the cornerstone of today’s existence, it would be prudent to use the titles “Technical Communicator” and “Technical Communication” instead of “Technical Writer” and “Technical Writing.” The job obviously requires more, and technical communicators are a necessity for all users/consumers/people to function in today’s post-industrial society.
I remember reading “Tech Writing and the Art of Laziness” for my Public and Professional Writing class; reading the article now is just as entertaining as reading it then. Cassidy points out the annoyance of most people when it comes to reading long, wordy manuals. As a user, the less information I have to contend with, to get what I want, is the more likely that I will actually use the product. As Cassidy says “Knowing what to include in the documentation is important. But knowing what not to include is equally important.”
One thing I find interesting is that the developers tell him what they want, or which sources he should consult. But understanding his audience, directs him to create a manual that the user, not the developers will be satisfied with. With writing his outline for the developers, they get a chance to see Cassidy’s vision, and give it a red or a green light. So maybe there is a middle ground for the technical communicator to occupy when it comes to providing the best usability service to the user while also pleasing the developers.
For a writer, the audience ought to the focal point of his/her thinking process, as the whole point of writing an article or book is for someone to read it. If the writer is simply writing to release energy or put thoughts on paper, then obviously an audience will not be important. “In Audience Involved: Toward a Participatory Model of Writing,” Johnson mentions audience being seen as “addressed” or “invoked,” within the writing process.
The audience gets lost in the writing process at times, as today the audience is so diverse that it is virtually impossible to address the needs of every reader. Therefore, many readers seek alternative or supplemental reference or knowledge sources, other than reading books. To remedy this issue, Johnson introduces a concept that “[discusses] acts of collaboration that involve the audience directly in the discourse production process- what [he] terms audience involved.” It seems rather idealistic that Johnson would encourage the users of written materials to be a part of the writing/production process. Most people don’t care how something gets done; all they are truly interested in is the end product, and the effectiveness of it. If it is in a classroom setting, then the rules are very different, as it will be a learning process for all the parties involved. In the work environment, if the users are themselves overwhelmed with their responsibilities, they might think the technical writer inefficient if he/she asks for their participation. Johnson even mentions the view that some personnel have of technical writers that they “merely “write up”the knowledge of designers and developers.” I will assume that many developers tell the technical writer what it is they are looking for re: the documentation process and that it isn’t solely on the technical writer. So will the technical writer then have to decide whose needs are more important, the developers or the audience? I believe sometimes that the two expectations contradict, so whose side should the technical writer take?
It becomes clearer to me why the field of technical communication is continuously evolving. Audiences at time get lost in the usability of a text, which will be seen as the fault of the technical writer. To broaden the scope of the technical writer and place of technology, in terms of creating websites, maps, brochures, digital versions of written materials create a place for more audience members than only words on paper can.
In “Relocating the Value of Work: Technical Communication in a Post-Industrial Age” Johnson-Eilola discusses the place of technical communication in a post-industrial age; today’s world. She mentions what the overview of technical communication ought to be in this era, where information is much more in demand and valuable than the products. She states that it would be better to “rearticulate technical communication as a post-industrial discipline, with documentation blurring into other areas…” The real value of technical communication is seen when users can adequately follow the technical support instructions of the technical writer and get tasks done. (I’m unsure of whether to say “technical writer” or “technical communicator.” Is there a difference between the two?) However, Johnson-Eilola discusses how corporations see technical communicators as secondary support and not primary support. The primary support team is kept up to date with the production progress and changes to be better equipped to communicate to the users an effective usability manual/instruction/digital design. Johnson-Eilola and many of the authors I’ve read so far believe that this ought to be the case with all technical communicators.
My initial and existing thoughts of, ‘what is the purpose of a technical communicator’ seems to be constantly changing. I was under the impression that technical communicators are at the behest of the developers. But based on my understanding, the readings place technical communicators in more of an authoritative role, where the technical communicator has the responsibility to create usable documents for the users based on the concerns (or lack thereof) expectations, ethnography, ethics, and the list goes on. So, I am very confused as to why the technical communicator’s role is so devalued? How can the work of a technical writer not be taken seriously?
I think with communication being the cornerstone of today’s existence, it would be prudent to use the titles “Technical Communicator” and “Technical Communication” instead of “Technical Writer” and “Technical Writing.” The job obviously requires more, and technical communicators are a necessity for all users/consumers/people to function in today’s post-industrial society.
I remember reading “Tech Writing and the Art of Laziness” for my Public and Professional Writing class; reading the article now is just as entertaining as reading it then. Cassidy points out the annoyance of most people when it comes to reading long, wordy manuals. As a user, the less information I have to contend with, to get what I want, is the more likely that I will actually use the product. As Cassidy says “Knowing what to include in the documentation is important. But knowing what not to include is equally important.”
One thing I find interesting is that the developers tell him what they want, or which sources he should consult. But understanding his audience, directs him to create a manual that the user, not the developers will be satisfied with. With writing his outline for the developers, they get a chance to see Cassidy’s vision, and give it a red or a green light. So maybe there is a middle ground for the technical communicator to occupy when it comes to providing the best usability service to the user while also pleasing the developers.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Journal Entry for Jan. 14
It seems as if the need to define or contain the “essence” of technical communication outweighs the value of the profession itself. I believe it’s neither here nor there what the precise, concise and accurate definition of technical communications is, as long as the various job descriptions in the field make sense and are relevant.
It seems as if the need to define or contain the “essence” of technical communication outweighs the value of the profession itself. I believe it’s neither here nor there what the precise, concise and accurate definition of technical communications is, as long as the various job descriptions in the field make sense and are relevant.
People have a good idea of the jobs done by technical writers. But as Bemer states, because technical communication isn’t as clear-cut as medicine or law, some people may take the field for granted or totally disregard it.
Bemer quotes authors Jo Allen and Pamela S. Ecker saying because the field of technical communication is evolving and the demands of the field change with the times, so deciding on a definitive definition is quite difficult and even unnecessary. I can see where these authors have a point, as why limit the scope of achievement and research for the sake of getting “oohs” and “aahs” at cocktail parties, when someone asks, “So what do you do for a living?” Accordingly, I disagree with Bemer when she states that a definition will not “doom” the field. On the contrary, a definition will stifle the exploratory powers of the field because of the new priority of sticking to the confines of the field description. Bemer states that the definition will evolve with the evolution of the field; if so, why bother to create a definition in the first place?
I also believe that a definitive definition for technical communication may decrease the value already placed on technical writers. Many individuals are not too sure what the field entails, so they don’t go into the field, making the existing technical writers even more valuable.
Many other individuals think of technical writing as a kind of scientific writing in that it involves primarily relaying facts and logical and practical information. As Miller states that “technical writing occurs in the context of government and industry and embodies tacit commitments to bureaucratic hierarchies, corporate capitalism, and high technology.” So why does technical writing need a humanistic component? Fundamentally, what technical writing addresses is the need for instructions, information, laws, and protocols given in a concise, precise, and accurate manner. To incorporate rhetoric, that appeals to people’s emotions, or to persuade will distort the core of technical writing. I believe that a humanistic rationale for technical writing is not beneficial or relevant for the field at this point.
Dobrin’s definition of technical writing: “Technical writing is writing that accommodates technology to the user.” This sounds quite clear and matter-of-fact to me.
My questions:
What is technical rhetoric?
What is scientific rhetoric?
What is technical rhetoric?
What is scientific rhetoric?
Is there a difference between the two?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
