#8

While reading Karen Schriver’s “What Do Techincal Communicators Need to Know About Information Design,” I was really struck by how Schriver describes the necessary skillset of a technical communicator—that is, they must be well versed in information design, the “art and science of integrating writing and design so that people can use content in ways that suit their personal goals” (388). Having shadowed one of Kristin’s DTC classes, I wonder how Washington State University’s DTC major might support Schriver’s argument for the growing skill set of technical communicators. I think, also, that emphasizing information design asks employers and peers in workplace situations to see the technical communicator as an author, a designer, rather than just a producer.

I’m also interested in Brent Henze’s discussion of genre and finding genres in the workplace within his article, “What Do Technical Communicators Need to Know about Genre?”. He applies the notion of genre to the technical communicator’s work and asserts that they can “simplify the technical communicator’s work by constraining the range of possibilities in a given communication situation, and they can encourage innovation by helping technical communicators understand the goals of a text and envision a range of ways to achieve those goals” (337). How might this complicate the discussion of author versus producer? What type of assignments might we include in our 402 courses to tackle this idea of genre? What are the pros and cons of thinking of the work of technical communicators in terms of genres? I guess I’m particularly interested in this topic because I’m a TA for English 302 this semester, and one of the assignments we’ve asked our students to complete is to establish their own genre of something (punk rock t-shirts, 1980s comedy posters, really, anything) and explain how their genre funtions in terms of outliers and norms. It’s a really cool assignment, but I wonder how we might translate it into looking at the genres of technical communication. What might be gained/lost as an author? What might be gained/lost as a user?

#7

“What are the Work Patterns of Technical communication?” William Hart-Davidson from Solving Problems in Technical Communication

1.     Problem.

Hart-Davidson notes that “the work of technical communicators was difficult to evaluate in explicit terms because it was seen as ancillary to the production of manufactured goods… [and] disconnected from the service-oriented economy of the professions” (50).

2.     Solution/response to problem and questions!

Hart-Davidson argues that things have since changed, and that “the work of technical communicators today is more readily visible and vital to the core mission and the bottom line of organizations of all types” (50). His article seeks to “provide an overview of the work practices [in contemporary technical communication]” and highlights “three major work patterns… that are characteristic of technical communication today: information design, user advocacy, and content and community management” (51). He looks at technical communicators as information designers first, explaining that “technical communicators must create information that no longer stays neatly within the boundaries of a single genre or even a single medium, but is published in multiple formats for multiple audiences, using multiple display formats and technologies” (51). Hart-Davidson then asserts that the technical communicator as user advocate “work[s] to ensure the usability of products in all phases of the user-centered design process,” essentially acting as the “voice of the user” (51-2). And, finally, he defines the technical communicator as a steward of writing activity in organizations as one whose “expertise helps ensure that organizations support content development as a vital component to the organization’s success” (52).

A main takeaway from Hart-Davidson’s article is that the work of technical communicators should be coordinative and transformative. That is, “technical communicators don’t merely make texts from scratch, but instead manipulate many existing texts, images, and fragments of information in order to make new ones” (52). He argues that transformation is the “end goal,” and that “making something new and adding value are the hallmarks of distributed work in technical communication” (53). He writes about the transformational aims of working with new media. How might this translate in terms of work done in the digital humanities? Can we compare technical writers to digital humanities scholars and their scholarship? Why or why not?

He also discusses usability versus usefulness and cites a study that found that users value usefulness over usability—users will learn to use something that will benefit them. Hart-Davidson suggests that “design teams should not try to solve all the usability problems with a given system before it ships… rather, technical communicators can take the lead in listening to users postadoption and learning from their feedback” (55). Would this still be considered a successful model of user centered design?

Hart-Davidson also offers a breakdown of four things technical communicators should practice to become more effective user advocates as well as step-by-step directions on how to construct coordinative work and transformative work.

3.     Links to other readings.

-       I see a link to Salvo’s article from last week, as Salvo mentioned a shift in seeing the expert as someone who took over entirely to an expert that worked with users. Hart-Davidson is very concerned with this idea of the modern expert that uses users as a resource.

-       Also, there’s a link to Slack, Miller, and Doak’s conversation about the technical writer as producer versus author.

-       I see connections to Selfe and Selfe’s article, “What Are the Boundaries, Artifacts, and Identities of Technical Communication?”, too, as both articles seek to analyze the field of technical communication and explain how it functions in the workplace. While Selfe and Selfe define the field of technical communication and Hart-Davidson establishes how technical communicators have capitalized on the commodification of successful communication, Henry’s article, “How Can Technical Communicators Fit into Contemporary Organizations?” further looks at different strategies for the technical communicator to succeed and exert agency within an organization.