Mastering Communication Technically

Jennifer Daryl Slack addresses philosophies and theories concerning the roles of technical communicators. In this case she questions the role of a technical communicator by examining Michel Foucault's idea of what an author's task entails-that is to characterize the existence, circulation and operation of certain discourses within a society. According to Slack, a technical communicator, though he/she transmits messages or translate meanings, can begin to be established as an author. In looking at the three models of communication- transmission, translation and articulation-Slack suggests that the power of technical communicators should be held responsible just as they are recognized. Meanwhile, Steven B. Katz evaluates the ethical and power issues in technical communication, reasoning that most technical communication is deliberative. This, as Katz states, is based primarily on arguments of expediency rather than worth or goodness. Basically, what Slack and Katz are trying to convey is that it is important to understand technical discourses and its role in articulation, as well as the ethical standards in deliberative discourses.

Interfaces and Ideologies

In "The Politics of the Interface," Cynthia and Richard Selfe, Jr. examine the use of computers in Engilsh Composition classes. They began by primarily focusing on computer interfaces, which are described as cultural maps of computer systems that order the virtual world. According to the Selfes, what is mapped in computer interfaces are both ownership and opportunity. Furthermore, the reality of such interfaces are trapped in the perspective of modern capitalism. The role of interfaces in society places a a stigma on race, class and cultural priviledge. First of all, they serve to reproduce English as the language of choice, leaving little room for non-English cultures to explore. Also, students who want to use computers are continually confronted with these grand narratives which places a value on middle-class, corporate culture. While interfaces present an issue in every social facet, the Selfes recommend that English teachers prepare themselves and students to map out these virtual spaces for what they truly are by simply acknowledging the complications . Only then will their awareness guide their actions. In Ben and Marthalee Barton's "Ideology and the Map," they seem to suggest that the ideology of visuals sustain relations of domination. In such case, visual representations in general are seen as complicit with social-control mechanisims inextriably linked to power and authority. Overall, the ideas behind both readings reveal that interfaces and maps are intricately systemized to cater to a specific social group.

Paper's Disappearing Act

In "The Shape of Text to Come," Stephen A. Bernhardt discusses the usage of text-particularly those that are screen-based. As I am typing this, Berhardts idea that text is inseparable from machine comes to mind. In such case, he asserts that the dependency of screen-based text on a larger technological and social environment stems from delimited circumstances. While books offer the convenience of portability, the presence of the text provides participant control in the screen world. This is especially the case with interactive texts, whereas it is integrated with planning scenes, reading texts, translations, and commentary, aside from the style learning. Though, Functionally Mapped text requires different actions, such as interpreting the functional roles of various texts. According to Bernhardt, when text shifts from one function to another, the rhetorical tension at the boundary tends to demand some kind of signal. Readers must be able to distinguish language cues, like how to manage files and execute commands, and how to navigate around language cues. Contrary to traditional cues of paper texts, the rapid expansion of functional cues on screen writing and reading are impoverished. However, it modular text that Bernhardts find very pertinent for it is definitely the shape of text to come, for it can be read many times. Despite many other types of text, Bernhardt ends this powerful piece by foreshadowing the impending developments of new strategies for reading and writing. Thus, perhaps blogging will soon offer a surplus of gratification, as a greater shaping influence on paper text make its mark.

Writing with the Company in Mind

As I am writing this, I have just learned, coincidently, that my column on "Anti-Bullying," does not meet the legal standards of the company because of the way I use the word 'murder'. Of course, I was dumbfounded by this revelation being that laws and regulations in journalism were not taught to me in college. Then, I read Writing in an Emerging Organization by Stephen Doheny-Farina. In it, Farina points out a statement found in a Scribener and Cole report: "Most of our notions of what writing is about, the skills it entails and generates, are mostly tied up with school based writing...(go figure)." This is definitely the case for me. I have come to realize that the way I was taught to write, is so much different from my job's requirements. This seems to come as no surprise, considering what Farina has to say about it. According to him, recent surveys have revealed that writing on the job is not an easy task being that workers are required to address diverse audiences for diverse purposes. While his research focuses mainly on technology-based businesses, I can see how it might apply to the journalism field. In such case, the company I work for is a nonacademic organization, and does follow a business plan, where completed texts are followed. In addition, they are careful to consider who has access to the written text, who reads it and who doesn't, and how it influences subsequent texts. These questions, which are included in Farina's research, are the very same ones that my boss encouraged me to consider when writing my column. I think Farin's idea for professors to teach students interpersonal skills is a good one, for that is another issue I struggle with. Certain tasks at work call for collaboration, and the fact that I struggle with maintaining an effective dialogue to get the assignment underway, becomes a hindrance. So I agree with Farin when he mentions the importance for teachers to be concerned with the social process that their students take on to achieve their writing tasks.

For Writers Who Hate Group Hugs...

In Carolyn Rude's The Report for Decision Making: Genre and Inquiry, she mentions the importance of debating a topic, in which one can discover, articulate and resolve conflicting values, before writing about it. I realize that this is very much the case in writing a Master's Thesis. In such case, the process of a thesis entails forming a committee, just like a some companies call for a collaborative group. In forming your thesis, you as an individual hold the power in deciding what direction you will go, while the committee guides you with constructive criticism and advice along the way. In contrast, a collaborative group shares the power and tasks. According to Nancy Allen (and all the other contributors) in What Experienced Collaborators Say About Collaborative Writing, "individuals must share power in making decisions that can be accepted by the group as a whole." Basically, nothing can be written unless everyone in the group agrees with the content. This is where the purpose and the effectiveness of decision making comes to play, especially where technical writing is concerned. Although it is a much required component on writing collaboratively, I assume, confidently, that it is a difficult task. If you read the the newspaper daily, you'll find that certain articles have more than one, sometimes more than two, writers. This is very much the case in a story that many journalists in the the newsroom can contribute something two. For example, we did a lengthy story covering the inauguration. Everyone had a story to tell, but the editor only wanted one in the paper. So instead of having each person write a story, she called for a collaborative article where everyone contribute something. This, of course, caused a conflict. You know how egotistical writers can be... everyone wanted to be a leader! Allen states that "leadership structure is not essential," but I beg to differ. Without an authoritative figure in the midst, the group could not get the project underway. Eventually, our editor got involved and a couple of people (the rowdy ones) were dismissed from the project. That just goes to show that working collaboratively takes careful consideration in not just arranging ideas, but arranging a group of people as well...particularly those who have an appetite for humble pie!

Style Me "Journalist"

Style! Some of us want it, some of us have it, and some of us aspire to perfect it into an original. By no means am I referring to fashion, although it can be applied to this notion. I am talking about writing style. When I first started working for the Forum Publishing Group, a subsidiary of the Sun-Sentinel, I was elated at the thought of being able to apply my writing style to every given assignment by my editor. I quickly learned that this would not be the case during the course of my my employment (booooo!!!). My editor informed me that there was a specific style that I had to follow to ensure the satisfaction of our forever, faithful readers. I had to conform my style to both the seasoned writers and the boring standards of the company. Doing so was difficult because the company did not possess a style guide like the one Philip J. Rydeski mentions in Making a Guide With Style. As a result, I found myself taking notes every time my editor sent me an email with a list of corrections to make. In addition, I was constantly seeking the advice of co-workers who each had something different to say about the matter at hand. I later learned that none of their opinions (or teachings) mattered because at the end of the day, we all had to march to the beat of our editor's drum for the sake of our...(drum roll please)...readers. Why? Well, Donald Norman states an interesting concept that pretty much sums it all in Writing as Design, Design as Writing. He explains that in order "to be successful, writing has to follow basic psychological principles. And then [it] must be tested, tried out with readers who are similar to the intended audience, and then revised in whatever manner the test results indicate". This theory, as I imagine, may have been FPG's protocol in deciding what writing style worked best for our readers. Whatever the case may be, I side with Linda Driskill who points out that "writing well is not merely conforming to genre conventions, as some of the genre-based approaches have implied." This is basically what I struggled with at work. I felt as if my writing style was slowly shedding with each critique I received from my boss. She never missed a beat when it came time to tell me that my style did not fit in the company's guidelines. I learned to not take these criticisms personally because I understood that I was dealing with a much different genre (journalism) than that of writing in my journal. With that being said, I am happy to know that I can at least incorporate my style of writing in the blogsphere where no rules apply- only creativity and originality!

The Curious Case of the Red Square Icon

As I reflect on the readings of Robert R. Johnson's Audience Involved: Toward a Participatory Model of Writing, I find myself recalling the day that I received my new Samsung Beat cellular phone. I remember ripping the box open, pushing all the manuals aside, and turning on my new device. I played around with the settings until I had almost everything figured out-from adding in contacts, setting up ring tones and uploading pictures. Subconsciously, I took the manual and placed it in a safe place. I didn't really need it, or so I thought... One day I came across a flashing red square icon on my phone's display. At that moment, I immediately pulled out the manual and looked up all the icons and their meanings. I was surprised to see that the red square icon was not listed. So I read the manual to its entirety -because simply skimming through it would not do- and still found nothing regarding the icon. Frustrated, I called my service provider. The customer representative that I spoke with was of no help. Upon realizing this, she transferred me to technical support. To my dismay, technical support was also of no help. According to them, they had never heard of nor seen a flashing red square icon appearing on the type of model phone that I had. My husband and I had tried to figure it out (for a month), when it finally dawned to me that every time I emptied out the text messages in my inbox, the icon disappeared. Basically, the icon's purpose was to serve as an indicator that my inbox was full! Who would've known? Certainly, not the technical support staff at T-mobile! Who could blame them? They were only doing what I did- which was reading through a manual written by some technical writer or writers who probably did not care about the users' needs. I can't help but wonder, if there were any usability testing involved, whereas users gave feedback during the conceptual, design and production stages of my phone? And if so, how much of that feedback was taken into consideration? Johnson states that usability testing is limited to fully developed technologies. Wouldn't you agree that cell phones are part of fully developed technologies? And, are we, the users, not the group that most technical communicators would claim to be helping? I am not sure what to think, but I must agree with Johndan Johnson-Eilola who states that "the common practice of instructing users in functional but not conceptual aspects of technologies can adversely or even fatally affect [them]." Consider me a part of the former notion!