4-00 (December 2000) by Ingrid Fuckner Special Aspects

Camille Johnson (CJ) in Forum 02/2000 (SA 16) indicates that a TC (Technical Communicator) can work on (almost?) any subject without any special training. I am dismayed by the frightening carelessness of this statement! Naturally, I am only presenting my opinion on my favoured subjects and on German conditions. Nonetheless, there are several indications that we may run into similar trouble on other subjects and in other countries.

I am a natural scientist working as a TC for scientific applications. Prospective clients have often told me: "Outsourcing did not work, because we could not find scientifically trained TCs. Therefore, the manuals were too expensive and the TCs needed too much time and help to complete the job. Moreover, sometimes the results were absolutely unusable."

 

The Problems

Let me cite one example: I was asked to translate the English manual for an analytical instrument. A Technical Writer, who obviously interviewed the experts carefully, wrote the English manual.

The problem was that the author had no corresponding scientific background, with the result that the manual contained a highly dangerous instruction and some very irritating inconsistencies. The dangerous instruction caused the instrument tp explode after about 20 minutes. They were lucky this time: no one was hurt.

The above example is alarming. However, it is by no means an exception. Similar cases indicate that

• instructions are
  • wrong or incomplete,
  • sometimes nonsensical and aimless, or
  • even dangerous;
• specialized vocabulary is used in a misleading way;
• important warning messages, precautions, and safety instructions
  • are missing, or
  • are described in a nonsensical manner.

Trouble arises in Technical Documentation when common sense and the experience of an intelligent adult no longer suffice for coping with the subject. A TC needs specialized knowledge, at least for some special subjects.

 

The Path Through the Jungle of Information

CJ indicates that excellent interviewing skills (and common sense?) are the only really important skills needed to get all the necessary information. Let's explore what a "Lay-TC" (TC without special education on the subject) will achieve via careful inquiry.

Step 1: Ask the User

The TC asks the user. Well done! But, generally, the user cannot provide information on details such as correct vocabulary or safety matters. Moreover, the users are looking for someone who can tell them about possible dangers, before they even think of them. A problem? The TC seeks out a SME (Subject Matter Expert).

Step 2: Find a SME

Will interviewing only one SME satisfy CJ? But which SME is the right one? Let's go back to my example:

• The scientist has the ideas for the instrument,
• the engineer and the designer turn these ideas into reality,
• the programmer handles mathematics and the firmware, and
• the service engineer performs maintenance and repair.

The result is that it will take a lot of time and help from the experts for the Lay-TC to understand each topic and express it correctly. The Lay-TC may possibly not even recognize there are contradictions.

Specialized Vocabulary

The problem is that the TC needs to find the right vocabulary. Even though all of the client's experts use the same jargon, no one tells the TC that every time they say, for example, "standardize", they really mean the TC should write "calibrate". The user cannot tell you the correct words, and the experts forget to tell you! Let's be honest: do you check the entire vocabulary? The manuals show me: "Certainly not!"

Inconsistencies can also arise when the same word has different meanings when used in different subject areas.

Understanding the SME

Other problems can arise when a Lay-TC learns something incorrectly, and thinks it is correct because he or she has misunderstood the expert. You may be aware that even experts sometimes will not help the TC in any way, because something wrong will not become right just because the user prefers it a certain way!

Consequently, a Lay-TC’s knowledge can be riddled with errors. The Expert-TCs (who are educated on the subject) have their own knowledge. They can check, review and monitor everything they learn. Lay-TCs cannot do anything but believe what they are told.

Step 3: Selection

The TC must select and explain everything the user needs to know. The problem is that the TC often has to complete the job in a very short time. The result is that errors in the Lay-TC’s knowledge surface in the manual and, in the worst case, even an expert has to be a clairvoyant to decipher the correct information.

You may ask: could this happen to a conscientious TC? The manuals show me that it happens time after time!" Collaboration between the Lay-TC and the SME entails a lot of work and risks. By contrast, the Expert-TC has to confer with the SME a lot less.

Step 4: Finding All of the Necessary lnformation

Think about a child who has never seen fire. Unsuspectingly, the child reaches for a candle flame and gets burned. This is exactly what can happen to a Lay-TC. Just like the child, the Lay-TC does not ask the essential question because he or she will not know there is something very important to ask about the "candle flame" of the instrument. The manuals show me: "the user gets burned!"

Experts and Safety Matters

Usually, in safety matters there are no experts available, and the available experts are relying on the TC! This is reality. The problem is that TCs who lack specialized knowledge are like a child without appropriate experience. They do not realize there are hidden safety problems. The example cited above is utterly typical for my work.

 

Economy

How long will it take for a Lay-TC to ask all the necessary questions? And who is going to pay for it?

How much of an expert's competency is required until the Lay-TC can implement the facts in the manuals? Who is going to pay for that?

Compared with an Expert-TC, a Lay-TC can only solve safety-related problems on a much lower level of competency. Who, then, is going to pay for that? Which user is likely to get hurt? Now, tell me, who is living under a rock? If the client's experts

• can explain each topic of a subject, so that a layperson really understands it, and
• do regard safety matters in an applicable way,

 

Summary

CJ indicates that the TC needs no educational updating on the subjects and Technical Writers only update their own writing skills. I disagree!

I believe that a good TC should not be the unsuspecting one who reaches out for a candle flame as the user might do. A good TC needs to be a foresighted expert with well-trained awareness of safety matters, errors, inconsistencies and usability. A good TC needs to be like a bloodhound tracking down hidden problems.

The TCs knowledge can never be extensive enough to meet this requirement, because the TC needs to be a person who saves the user from causing damage, and so protects the client from liability for damages.

If a subject's topics minimally exceed the experience of an intelligent adult, the TC may no longer remain a layperson, because the TC’s job is not merely to ask all of the vital questions; questions that users and experts do not even visualize. If the client has not established a special department for documentation, then no one else but the TC can provide the correct answers! How could a layperson do this?

One also needs to bear in mind that even a bright TC does not become an expert within three months. It will probably take about three years.

 

Postscript

Experts who specialize on many subjects realize that we are not omnipotent beings.  

"transline Deutschland - Übersetzungsdienst für technische Übersetzung"