Talk:Technical communication

Contributors and Editors for Technical Writing

Have a look at the Wikiversity Introduction to Technical Writing. It needs work...especially a good explanation of technical communications in the first section. Thanks... TWFred 08:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Johnson-Sheehan is cited in the first paragraph of the wiki, but I cannot find this source. CLambs 15:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Johnson-Sheehan is apparently a professor in the College of Liberal Arts at Purdue, but the source of the citation is still unclear. Seems a silly problem to have in the technical communication article... :)

However, the greater question is whether the citation is necessary. The statement to which this citation is attached is not novel or uncommon. I would suggest removing it, and will do so if there aren't significant objections. Wolfraem (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Usability and Collaboration

One of the most important aspects of technical communication is the need for the information communicated to be useable, not just expository. As such, I felt it was important to add the word "useable" in front of "information." Likewise, collaboration factors into a lot of the work technical communicators do--enough so that it should be included here. --ISUengl314 11:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Usability & Collaboration

This is my first edit, so I'm not quite sure what I'm doing here or how to use this page. (If I've added the comment incorrectly, please forgive me!) However, I've just added information about usability and collaboration to this page. This is important because technical communication isn't just about conveying information; it is about conveying information that people can use, thus information that is useable. Likewise, technical communicators often work collaboratively and anyone thinking about tech comm as a career (we have a job list here) needs to know that they should be good at teamwork. --ISUengl314 11:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Stuff removed from article

I've just removed all this text, which is specifically about technical WRITING and really ought to be merged into technical writer or some other appropriate article. Need a more general description of **technical communication**, which is what this is about. Elf | Talk 05:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(start of removed text)

Style

Information products developed by technical communicators are written in a style that is clear and concise. Paragraphs tend to be short and refer to a single topic. The length of sentences is kept to a minimum for easy reading. Important information is presented at the beginning followed by any details that may be required to provide explanation of the main topic. Technical communicators avoid the use of unnecesary words and long complex sentence structures. They also avoid the use of intensifiers unless these are essential.

The use of style guides will assist technical communicators to maintain consistency in their writing, especially where they are working in teams.

Presentation

The presentation of the content must ensure the clarity of the information. How the text and graphical elements are presented will depend on the means by which the material is being delivered to the audience, on paper or online. Headings are used to signal content, white space allows the reader to clearly define the blocks of information available. Colour must be used with care - can it be easily read, does it have cultural significance and meaning? List of illustrations must be used to clarify the presentation.

Text Formatting

Formatting must not distract the audience or make it difficult for them to read the information. The number of fonts used are kept to a minimum.

Format guides or templates make for efficiency in business of formatting documentation, and control the way that formatting elements are used.

Graphical Elements

Adding graphical elements, such as figures, illustrations, and tables can help the reader to more easily identify and understand the information being delivered. It is important that use of graphical elements is consistent and supports the purpose of the documentation. Care must be taken to ensure that the culture of the intended audience is taken into account when using graphical elements.

Figures may include pictures of any type, tables, equations or graphs. It is important that only the part of a figure pertinent to the topic is displayed. This may mean cropping a picture, trimming a table or magnifying part of a graph. Done properly, such modifications reduce visual activity and direct the reader to the information that matters.

The illustrations you use will depend on factors such as means of publication, availability of material, and requirements of the audience. Illustrations can be diagrams, graphs, line drawings, screen captures, or photographs. Care must be taken to ensure that the elements of the illustration can be easily read by the audience via the medium by which it is being delivered.

Tables should avoid cell fills unless this contributes to understanding and meaning. Borders are always stripped to those necessary; usually only that between the header and data is kept, though even that may be removed if the header text is bold. (Having both a border and bold text redundantly expresses the superiority of the header.)

(end of removed text)

---

Frequent Changes

My university technical communication class has been given the task of improving this article as a class project. Because of this expect there to be frequent (possibly anonymous) edits in the next week or so. This is intended to be a heads-up to other editors and admins. Ve4cib 02:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Distinctions needed

There needs to be distinctions made in this article from non-technical communication. Oicumayberight 22:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Content creation section reads like a wikibook

On a related note--are there any citations in this article? I'll see what I can do to find some... New here, so I hope I go about it correctly. Derthy (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This section is written with more of an instructional advisory tone than the factual informative tone expected from an encyclopedia. Maybe this section belongs in a wikibook instead. Oicumayberight 05:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Potential conflict of interest question

It's not clear to me how close to the conflict of interest line I'm skating if I add a reference to a relevant book that comes from my publishing company. There is no text other than the reference, and I believe the books that were referenced are relevant to the topic. But, if it's considered a conflict of interest, I'll remove them. DickHamilton (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Hamilton, thank you for asking this question. If a source is not referenced directly or generally in the article, there is little encyclopedic value adding by including the reference. It would on the surface seem to be a promotional choice, which is generally considered poor form in the Wikipedia community.

In this case, it seems an adage offered when a person questions the legality of his or her actions: "If you have to ask, you already know the answer." It would be appreciated if you could remove the reference. Wolfraem (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The references are now gone (through the actions of someone else, though I have no objections to their removal). I understand your first point, and generally agree, though I'm not sure how carefully it is followed in practice.

Regarding your second point, in the abstract it makes sense (if you replace the word "legality" with "acceptability"), but in the real world, where every venue has its own standard for what constitutes "acceptable" content, the answer to that question can vary. In any case, I really appreciate your taking the time to respond to my request. As a relatively light contributor to Wikipedia, it helps to get advice from more experienced contributors. DickHamilton (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"...the answer to that question can vary." Indeed true, and it is certainly refreshing for someone to actually ask than simply assuming; I meant that comment with significantly less bite, my apologies. Wolfraem (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

History

The history section is small. I know I have read papers on the history of the Tech Comm field and will dig through my piles of old material. Can others have a look and contribute as well? If you add information from verifiable or discoverable sources, please add citations in the references section and place in-text links in your contribution. Wolfraem (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Which method of communication is best for complex or technical material

Faith 4 love (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest that the term technical publication be redirected to this page. 70.250.190.30 (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean: (from end of first para of 1.1 Determining...purpose) "Dont use this ide for an electronic device typically includes diagrams along with detailed textual explanations." Ide? Bookhook (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Bookhook

Sourcing

This is a major field of study...why is there only one source? A layman might look at this entry and not realize just how significant and vital the subject is. I think there should be a community effort to beef up the sourcing before worrying about the content. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The lead is a mess

As it stands, the lead is poorly written. It contains a list, which is really unusual for Wikipedia entries, and likely isn't informative enough for readers unfamiliar with the subject. I think it needs to be cut down, which shouldn't be a problem considering that it's all unsourced. Some of the material in the lists and parentheses (which are too long and too frequent) could probably be moved elsewhere in the article as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The lead has been fixed, but now there's another issue. The content creation section really gives a lot of attention to technical writing, and none at all to other technical communication professions such as technical illustration or technical editing. Furthermore, it appears to be a repeat of the writing process article. Now, the material in this case is well-written and I'm sure somebody put a lot of time into it, but I really feel like it ought to just be deleted. What purpose does it serve? The writing process in technical writing differs very little from the general writing process. Are we going to include big long sections for what makes technical translating different from normal translating, for example? Part of the reason for inter-wiki links is that, if the reader wants to know more, they can click and open another window. If someone wants to know that much about technical writing specifically, then there's already an entry for that. I feel that this article ought to be kept only for what's relevant to technical communication as a whole...I will see if I can merge this content creation business somewhere else, though the sourcing for it is still a major issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

To avoid WP:TLDR, I'll put it this way: I want to remove the "content creation" subsection, or merge it to the writing process and related articles. Hoping for a response from other editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I propose that relevant content from Technical communication tools be merged as a section here. Keep in mind that not all of the content there now is relevant. I just don't see a reason for a big long list of the tools which we use as a standalone entry. A short paragraph here mentioned our most common tools (only if it can be sourced!) might enhance this article, but it certainly doesn't require a separate one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)