tech comm overview

TECH COMM OVERVIEW

The Basics, Connections to Rhetoric, and some Advanced

Theory

SIMPLE DEFINITIONS “The art of writing technical materials

that nobody wants to read.”

“A multi-stepped process of managing technical information that allows people to take action.”

MANY BRANCHES OF ONE TREE Technical writers Technical Illustrators Information Architects Search Engine Marketers/Optimiziers Interface Designers Technical Trainers Translators Professors/Teachers

A PROCESS & MINDSET Planning and

Researching Organizing and

Drafting Improving the Style Designing the

Document Testing, Revising,

Editing Finished Document

GENRE CONCERNS

This process is not as linear as this list suggests; technical communicators will move back and forth amongst the stages as needed throughout the design of a document.

GENRES- MORE THAN A GUIDE OR TEMPLATE

Professional Letters, Emails, Memos Technical Descriptions Instruction Sets and Documentation Proposals Analytical Reports/White Papers Activity Reports Usability Reports

MINDSET Keen awareness to the effects of

language and how language works Ego-less & Thick-Skinned Awareness that visuality is not gloss but

creates meaning Comfortable/Familiar with technology-

especially online and social media Inquisitive and Curious Rhetorical

RHETORIC IS NOT A BAD WORD

RHETORIC The art of successful communication

The process of finding all the available means of persuasion in argumentation

The process of composing “texts” in a manner that takes into account the variety of ever-changing factors that decide the texts’ potential effectiveness

Makes communication possible at all

RHETORICAL SITUATION The inter-related cluster of concerns

that should be considered in any communicative setting.

The rhetorical situation acknowledges that the best communication happens in complex spaces where many decisions have been made long before any communication or drafting of a text begins.

ONE VERSION

Audience/Readers

Purpose

Context of Use

GenreMedium

PURPOSEInformative: Inform Describe Define Review Instruct Notify Advise Demonstrate

Persuasive:o Persuadeo Influenceo Recommendo Changeo Advocateo Defendo Justifyo Supporto Urge

AUDIENCE/READERS

AUDIENCE/READERS Education Level Technical Knowledge Cultural Matters What They Will use the Document for Age Gender Race Title- esteem Subject Familiarity Attention Level

GENRE Memos Emails Descriptions Proposals Activity Reports Analytical Reports Resumes White Papers Help/Support Documents

Note:

Some of these (such as Support documents) will have varying genre expectations based on the medium (i.e., print support has different demands than online support)

MEDIUM Print

Grammar/PunctuationFont ChoicesWhite SpaceLayoutQuality of MaterialSize of MaterialAdditional Resources

MEDIUM Primarily Visual

Understanding an image Zoom level/various scales Universal symbols Consistency of angle, aspect, spatial

arrangement Color or black and white Color is essential to the meaning Level of detail

MEDIUM Web

Usability Ease of interaction organization/flow Navigation

Sensible, easyEmphasis

Contrast Color sizes

CONTEXT OF USE Physical placement of the user How much time they have to look it over Proportion in relation to value Time of use Geographical location Need for preservation

ARISTOTLE’S PROOFSLogos: appeals to reason through data, examples, logic, and organization

Pathos: appeals to emotion and empathy

Ethos: credibility of the speaker/writer and how this affects their argument

PATHOS T.C. often seen as a field where

emotional appeals are frowned upon . . .Challenger MemoProposal Pandering

. . . but this is not entirely trueDesignUrgency/Exigency

PROFESSIONAL ETHOSIn-Person

• Dress• Voice• Presence• Preparedness• Timeliness• Fairness• Collaboration• Knowing your

role

In-Writing

• Style• Tone• Punctuation• Grammar• Citation• Sensitivity to

cross-cultural influence and disabilities

STASIS: A THEORY OF SOLVING CONFLICTS AND PERSUADING ETHICALLY Rhetorical theory of building power with

instead of power over Process of moving from theory to action while

working with others

Against the idea that to “win” an argument someone else must “lose”

Finds ways for disagreeing parties to still communicate and move forward

4 STAGES OF STASIS

Investigate the facts (conjecture)

Define the issue and the terms involved (definition)

Define the seriousness of the issue (quality)

The plan of action (policy)

THIS COMPANY IS BUGGING ME“I have no problem with the company implanting RFID chips in our palms. The company’s info is more secure, I can carry less stuff on my person, and it’s not like I even know it’s there.”

“An RFID chip is an invasion of my body’s personal space, with potential health consequences, and will allow the company to potentially track my whereabouts.”

FACTS (CONJECTURE) The company is going to do this whether

anyone likes it or not

There is precedence set where other companies have already done this

RFID chips can technically be used for purposes other than what the company is stating*

DEFINITION “Privacy” “Safety” (personal) “Security” (company)

Instead of getting bogged down in whether this should happen, or if the company has the “right” to do it, the team would be better served defining these terms in a way that accommodates competing definitions

SERIOUSNESS (QUALITY) The group needs to come together and

realize that the concerns of the dissenters are just as valid as those who have no problem with the idea.

If this hasn’t happened yet, more time needs to be spent at the level of definition

PLAN OF ACTION (POLICY) Ideally, the policy will ultimately reflect

the definitional work, respect the seriousness of the issue, and alleviate fears about problematic facts

“Ok, we agree that the company can do this but disagree that there are no problems that come with it.”

“Yes. So we can include in the policy elements that alleviate anxieties.”

“We want to do more than alleviate anxieties. The facts show that abuse is possible.”

“I see. Perhaps we can build in some checks and balances that show abuse is not happening.”

“This would be good. It would also help to use language that is sensitive to privacy issues since this is the core of the disagreement.”

WHERE WE DON’T GO IN 2310 Rhetoric is rooted in the humanistic tradition

Recognizes value and agency of human beings Values creativity, inquiry, skepticism Champions equality of all people Interested in welfare of all people Open to alternative self-identities, lifestyles, and ways of being

Engineering teachers will sometimes warn of letting people trained in classical rhetoric or literature teach technical writing because they "risk having their students taught principles that are in conflict with engineering principles.”

Mathes, J.C, Dwight W. Stevenson, and Peter Klaver. "Technical Writing: The Engineering Educator's Responsibility." Engineering Education 69 (1979): 331-34.

COMPARISON Recognizes value

and agency of human beings

Values creativity, inquiry, skepticism

Champions equality of all people

Interested in welfare of all people

Open to alternative self-identities, lifestyles, and ways of being

• Workers often treated as serving a specific function; agency stifled by corporate needs

• Profit can trump human needs

• Employee as easily replaceable cog in the machine

• Genres can stifle creativity• Skepticism (especially

about company ethics or values) can be dangerous

• Problems with gender, racial, and sexual orientation equality are FAR from solved

The Corporate World

BACK TO RHETORIC The Corporate world sees your abilities as what

Aristotle called techne A set of skills that can be removed from the

author- packaged and sold – relieving the author of any responsibility

A Humanist approach sees your abilities as praxis A process/practice of taking and making

responsible social action for the self & others

Techne has no other end than itself. Praxis aims for responsible, social action.

A PROFESSOR’S OPTIONS (1) I can get with the program, change my values and

become a representative of the technological society

(2) I can leave the profession of teaching technical writing

(3) I can become schizophrenic

(4) I can figure out how to change my course so that it at once teaches the discourse appropriate for the technological world and makes students aware of the values embedded in such discourse and the dehumanizing effects of it.

Dale Sullivan