Don't you see that this is a mirror argument? Let me rephrase what you're saying:
> What I object to is putting the burden and responsibility on the engineer, > rather than where it belongs...on the writer. I've worked with very few > writers who wanted to improve their involvement in product development or who > even cared. Most writers I've worked with just want to do what they are told > to do; they don't want to get into the nuts and bolts. IMHO, this requirement > is setting we engineers up for failure. Just because the company wants the us > to communicate more effectively, it doesn't mean that the writers want to, > are motivated to, or would willingly cooperate with such "coaching". < Don't look at it as a burden, but an opportunity to collaborate. Yes, engineers work very differently from writers, but a writer's honed skills at audience analysis can certainly be reverse-engineered to look at author-analysis, see what their workflow and workloads are like, and work WITH them to develop means for improvement. On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Writer <generic668 at yahoo.ca> wrote: > What I object to is putting the burden and responsibility on the tech > writer, rather than where it belongs...on the engineer. I've worked with > very few engineers who wanted to improve their communication skills or who > even cared. Richard, in your case, you were asked by people who were > motivated to learn, and that's great; however, your experiences do not > reflect mine. Most engineers I've worked with just want to do what they are > told to do; they don't want to discuss it or describe it. > IMHO, this requirement is setting the tech writer up for failure. Just > because the company wants the engineers to communicate more effectively, it > doesn't mean that the engineers want to, are motivated to, or would > willingly cooperate with such "coaching". > Nadine -- Bill Swallow Twitter: @techcommdood Blog: http://techcommdood.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/techcommdood
