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.