A Response to a Response

As TechWriterAB commented on my last entry, I will respond as best I can. I think it can be overwhelming to consider that as rapidly as technology changes, our definitions of that technology change even faster. By "our," I can only indicate a collective definition prescribed by any group of common users. Comfortable users of technology will most likely define their tools in a positive light; whereas, "recreational" users of technology will probably define their tools with a negative connotation. I agree "that meanings of terms are very subjective and open to interpretation."

This definition of terms takes me to the next comment in regards to the job of an information architect. In all reality, the title does not define the job--rather, our actions do. TechWriterAB call it "another term that actually represents a technical writer." They go on to say "We have many different titles and roles…no wonder it is difficult for others to understand what we do." I've often had the tech writer conversation with friends or family and had a difficult time explaining what it is that we do (or can do). The first thing most people assume is that I write stereo manuals and I am to blame for their relative confusion. So, we come up with these titles to help specify what it is that we do, when it is unavoidable that our jobs are still open for interpretation by anyone.

Often times, user experience testing is the only aspect of technical communication where folks outside of our field can be involved, gatekeepers and users included. Here, "the user is the person that we are creating our product for and obviously must be the most important factor." TechWriterAB comments, "While considering consistency, design choices, and needed information for the user we are ensuring that our product will meet the user’s needs." Again, a redefinition of terms occurs. We become more than just the scribe--we are the grand wizard, looking at the total user experience in an attempt to discover our audience's perceptions of use before, during and after.

Is it more productive to formulate a static understanding of what we do so our actions as technical communicators are always appropriately focused; or is it better to constantly bend and change how we define our profession?