The third writer says, “You know, they really should write a warning on that.”

This joke is courtesy of my friend, a developer (of course).

I’m currently investigating the translation process at work, which for some reason reminds me of the Underpants Gnomes (see video below - it has cursing, so beware). I’m still at a high level view, where I’ve learned helpful tidbits, such as that in order to have docs translated, you need money and a plan. Well, duh. But, what’s coming up, and I find this extremely promising, is the terminology process.

The terminology process is all about sorting out the words. You know, putting the dark words with the darks and the light words with the lights? Well, not really.

As far as I can tell, the process goes like this: I find words specific to the product. I fence off those product words to protect them from the translators, who would no doubt ruin them. Next, I find words that aren’t specific to the product, but are used a lot. I investigate whether these non-product-but-still-used-a-lot words have company-wide synonyms that are better. I report my findings to . . . someone. Finally, I find all the words that are “bad” and replace them with shiny, new, morally upright words that we can all be proud of.

At least that’s how I imagine the terminology process to work after marking up four documents with pink highlighter. Or, I could just be high from highlighter fumes.

Nothing is more exciting than meeting that one person that instantly “gets you.” They know where you’re coming from. They know what drives you. And, their stories captivate you. It’s magic! Or, if you’re a technical communicator, it’s an STC conference!

I really enjoyed myself at Currents this year. Currents was the first professional conference I have attended. The crowd was small, but enthusiastic. Jean-luc Doumont was an absolute superstar. His presentation, Road Signs, was entertaining and thought provoking. I really hope I get see it again. Dr. Mike Hughes gave a great demonstration on comparative data, which turned out be the ultimate Cliff Notes to statistics. At least know when not to get excited about statistics now! And, then there was Margaret Cekis’ presentation about getting information you need, which I really needed, and would have loved to have, when I was the lone writer.

It was so exciting and validating to hook up with other professionals in my field. Granted, I’m luckier than some writers. I’m part of a team of technical writers, so I enjoy the privilege of working with people every day that “get me.” But, it is a little like living on Gilligan’s Island. We all like each another well enough but, we still want to get off the island from time to time.

I’m presenting at STC currents this year on the topic of collaborative walkthroughs. Collaborative walkthroughs are a holistic approach to peer review that my team used during the implementation of Darwin Information Typing Architecture.

The conference is on March 14-15 and is being held on my old stomping grounds - Southern Polytechnic State University. I will be presenting Collaborative Walkthroughs at 10:00 a.m., my room assignment is TBD.

My coworker, Mike Hughes, is also presenting Which was Better?, a demonstration on assessing comparative data. Mike is presenting at 1:30 p.m. Another coworker, Mark Wallis, is presenting How to Run a Successful DITA Pilot User Assistance Project at Writers UA in Portland a few days later. IBM ISS information development will definitely be out in force in March!

Here is the description for the conference from Atlanta chapter’s Web page (http://www.stcatlanta.org/currents.htm):
This two-day conference includes:

• A Friday workshop by Jean-luc Doumont, who will present his popular “Visual Structure” lecture
• Information-packed Saturday sessions, featuring keynote speaker Mark Clifford, First Vice President of the STC, and Jean-luc Doumont’s “Road Signs” presentation
• Industry leading vendor exhibits, on-site technical bookstore, door prizes, and much more

Hope to see you there!

I have to admit, I was pulling for the New England Patriots. It’s not that I’m a fan, but it would have been a historic moment. The Patriots were undefeated this season and the only other undefeated team to win the Super Bowl was the Miami Dolphins way back in 1972.

I was pleased to see the new method for illustrating downs. The last time I watched football, the television networks had just started using a digital, yellow line to indicate how far the offense needed to take the ball to achieve a first down. Tonight, I noticed that the FOX network had superimposed a graphic on the field that showed the down, the number of yards the team needed to achieve the next first down, and the direction of play. The graphic was so good that it actually looked as if it were painted onto the field. I think it’s such a cool idea because it gives me the information I need to understand the play without interfering with the play. Plus, it beats the heck out of trying to read those itty-bitty numbers in a slim bar at the top of the screen, particularly since I’m still watching a 19-inch television.

For those of you that don’t know how to play football, you can learn the important stuff here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzG6rWC0gg8.

As a side-note, I really enjoyed the half-time show. This isn’t actually from the Super Bowl, but they did play this song.

Several weeks ago, I discovered typographic videos. They remind me of how much I enjoy layout design work. The video I’ve embedded is most closely related to writing and is “work safe.” But, my favorite features dialog from Pulp Fction. Beware, there is an F-bomb or two in the Pulp Fiction video.

I am considering buying a home and I am discovering the need for information I previously could live without.

Suddenly, I’m interested in my rights to credit information. Credit reports are free, but I don’t know how to calculate the credit scores a bank uses to judge my credit worthiness. The reality is that free credit reports don’t address the most common use-case for credit information - applying for credit. So, I must pay for my FICO scores.

I have also discovered a sudden need to have a Multiple Listings Service (MLS) area map. MLS areas are smaller than zip code areas or counties, so they are much more useful for home searches. However, they are generally considered a tool for real estate professionals. I didn’t even know this information existed two months ago. Now MLS area maps are all the rage and hard to find.

To give you an idea of how useful these maps are, I have highlighted the approximate area I’m interested in on an MLS area map and on a zip code map. The particular MLS areas are 131, 82, and 83. You can see that I would receive a lot of useless search results if I searched by zip code. Searching by county is even worse.

Information is valuable, but only at the moment you need it. Lately, I find myself in need a lot. Unfortunately, there’s no contextual help for buying your first home, or at least I haven’t found it yet.

For a long time, I have played into the idea that technical writing is boring, when I know it’s not, and unimportant, which I don’t believe for a second. In the past, when people asked me what I did, I would end my description with an obligatory “boring, I know.” Then I read Karen Wormald’s article, “Momma, Don’t Let Your Babies be Tech Writers,” and I decided that it’s finally time for me to set the record straight.

I love being a technical writer. I didn’t fall into it or segue into it. This is my chosen profession and I think it’s great.

The problem is that technical writing is a big tent. People retire into it, come over from other disciplines, and even escape into it when they can’t make it as a so-called “real” writer. Most of the unhappy technical writers I’ve met were just disillusioned - they didn’t understand what they were getting into or they never wanted to be here in the first place. Maybe their mommas should have made them be lawyers or doctors, since I’m pretty sure that technical writers fall into the “and such” category. I get why they are unhappy and I sympathize, but their disillusionment is not my reality.

To me, technical writing is “real” writing. It may not move the soul, but it does move the person. It helps people work. It helps people live. Technical writing can help a dad assemble his kid’s new bicycle and help a mechanic fix a plane. What’s more “real” than that?

Technical writing does require creativity. Instead of thinking up plot twists, I’m thinking up ways to tell my audience everything they need to know as quickly as possible. I don’t want recognition from my reader, I seek anonymity. May the user completely forget they ever clicked a help button, Amen.

That takes creativity!

Technical writing is fun and it is important. If you don’t think its important, I challenge you to find one person whose life has never been made easier by it. However, to enjoy being a technical writer, you need the right perspective. You should enjoy research. You should like to organize things. And, yes, it does help if you can be passionate about serial commas and capitalization.

Karen Wormald thinks I’m not a “real” writer and she’s right. I am a “real” technical writer and proud of it.

Click here to read read Karen Wormald’s article, “Momma, Don’t Let Your Babies be Tech Writers.”

I’ve been wondering about Web 2.0 for a while now, wondering what it is, what it means. Tonight I found two very interesting artifacts that helped me understand Web 2.0. The first is a very well edited video by Mike Wesch. The second is a rather lengthy, but very well written essay by Paul Graham.

In essence, Web 2.0 is what we all thought the web could be. Check it out:

Click here to read Paul Graham’s essay “Web 2.0″.