Tech Writer Today Magazine by TechWhirl

TechWhirl: Technical Communication Recap for May 25, 2012

TechWhirl — Fri, 25 May 2012 16:10:14 +0000

This week’s update on technical communications and the TechWhirl community is supported by Platinum sponsor Adobe & RoboHelp 9 | http://adobe.ly/Ay5bVC

By now most STC Summit attendees are back at their desks ready to do battle with recalcitrant SMEs and unfocused management. TechWhirl returns to the homesteads today, with a new sense energy, lots of ideas, and a greatly enhanced network of colleagues, peers and friends who make up a large part of the technical communication community.

We recognize that most TechWhirlers did not head to Chicagoland either by choice or necessity of budget limitations. So we’ve collected posts and pictures of the three-day extravaganza as part of the Tech Writer This Week post. At the same time, we continued with our regularly scheduled content including a great new article from Geoff Hart on Peer Review Strategies for Technical Writers, and the second part of Tony Chung’s series on Crowdsourcing.

Of course TechWhirlers started and continued plenty of threads on the email discussion list, so those that weren’t heads down in educational sessions at the STC didn’t get too lonely… or bored.

If you’re a US technical communicator, Happy Memorial Day and enjoy the long weekend. If you call somewhere else home, have a great weekend too!

-The gang at TechWhirl

	Tech Writer This Week for May 24, 2012: STC Summit Special EditionA special edition of TechWhirl’s Weekly Roundup of the best technical communication and technical writing posts on the web. This week we focus on the content and happenings from Chicago and the STC Summit. Educational sessions, Lightening Talks, photos and commentary that highlight the world of technical communication.
	Crowdsourcing: the Double-edged SwordMy interest in crowdsourcing began honestly: It was forced upon me by the powers that be. In my work as a Content Strategist for a large government website, our communications department asked me how they could harness the power of the crowd to give community planners insight into the interests of the constituents within specific neighborhoods. Ordinarily, the project itself would be a boring mix of user polling and statistics, of interest only to a relatively small group who knew about urban planning.
	Peer Review Strategies for Technical WritersWriters’ groups have existed for as long as there have been writers. Their goal, other than providing an excuse to gather with kindred spirits over coffee or beer, is to obtain expert critiques of your writing. By understanding the comments and learning to distinguish between valid and invalid criticisms, you learn to write better stories. I’ve participated in such groups, and members have ranged from supporters who actually cared about my aspirations as a writer to ruthless egotists who mostly wanted to prove how much better they were than me. Most technical writers have encountered this approach in the form of peer review, but peer review most often has a different focus: to replace a full-time editor rather than to teach writers to write better.

Tech Comm News

Xara Releases Version 8 of Designer Products | http://bit.ly/KJ1Yf4
STC President Alan Houser Addresses Annual Business Meeting | http://bit.ly/L7tnvJ
Polycom®Updates RealPresence®Video Content Delivery to Mobile Devices| http://bit.ly/KnFfXp

Social Media and the Chance to Follow TechWhirl:

Our Google Plus Page – what’s happening behind the scenes | http://goo.gl/SO0R4
Will you be our Friend? Please, you know you want to click | http://goo.gl/tDrW7
Want all this TechWhirl goodness a few characters @ a time | http://goo.gl/itjDg
Updates from TechWhirl delivered to your email in box | http://bit.ly/tjshxU
Or, try our RSS feed (great on Flipboard) | http://goo.gl/msLzu

Tech Writer This Week for May 24, 2012 : Special STC Summit 2012 Edition

Craig Cardimon — Thu, 24 May 2012 13:42:01 +0000

Crowdsourcing: the Double-edged Sword

Tony Chung — Tue, 22 May 2012 10:00:17 +0000

Editor’s Note: The following is the second of a three-part series by Tony Chung on crowdsourcing and its impact on technical communication and technical writers. And because we are talking crowdsourcing, we invite you to participate by commenting here on on the email discussion list.

In the first post in this series, I suggested that the term “crowdsourcing” might just be a marketing-oriented name to describe the age-old concept of collaborative authoring. Or is it that simple? In this post we explain the difference between active and passive research techniques, and the importance of knowing your audience before you start, in order that you may reach “the crowd.”

Crowdsourcing as community building

My interest in crowdsourcing began honestly: It was forced upon me by the powers that be. In my work as a Content Strategist for a large government website, our communications department asked me how they could harness the power of the crowd to give community planners insight into the interests of the constituents within specific neighborhoods. Ordinarily, the project itself would be a boring mix of user polling and statistics, of interest only to a relatively small group who knew about urban planning.

Community planners would typically use active research techniques, like surveys and questionnaires, in order to reach this select group of individuals. A researcher would cross-post a question into multiple mailing lists, and poll the opinions of several users at the same time, with the important caveat that active research is at the mercy of those within the group who chose to participate. If the query should bomb terribly, the researcher would be left to wonder if the problem was with the question, or the audience.

Crowdsourcing and the art of knowing your audience

As a real-world example, let’s consider the research for this topic. I posted a request for crowdsourcing opinions and examples to two mailing lists: TechWhirl proper, and the Content Strategy Google group. In the case of this extremely specific topic, the audience was a key factor in generating the volume and type of responses to the question.

The more traditional technical writers on TechWhirl completely ignored the discussion. The few responses I received on this list didn’t speak to crowdsourcing at all. Jen Jobart summarized the lack of feedback when she posted a link to Jakob Nielsen’s page on Participation Inequality.

On the other hand, the content strategists on the Google group provided varied and helpful feedback in only a few very detailed replies. Content strategists often deal with out-of-the-box projects, and many had experience with shared writing, by managing multiple authors using wikis or web forms.

If the feedback to my specific query was any indication, I imagined the community planners at my workplace would have a difficult time, as their questions would be more open-ended. I can’t imagine how planners could encourage large groups of users to participate in a community planning survey. And if, by chance, the people responded, would the feedback be useful and easy to process?

I was convinced that there had to be a better system for gauging the interests of large populations, and elicit response, even from people who wouldn’t think about reading a planning document.

Crowdsourcing puts computers to work for you

Rather than limit ourselves to active research, where we ask the questions, we now have at our disposal tools for passive research that listen for murmurs of a given type. These tools aggregate, or collect and compile, articles from news and social media feeds in real time. Users don’t even realize their comments are being monitored and integrated into research. This technique is much like RSS feeds, where you would subscribe to specific information sources. Where this technique differs is that rather than subscribing to sources, you set up specific filters, regardless of the source.

The type of research you collect depends on the platform you use. For instance, the Ushahidi platform polls social media feeds, and SMS messages sent to a specific number, to collect information and plot points of interest onto a world map in real time. Ushahidi is open source, and you can download the application to host on your own webserver. You can also register a free account on Ushahidi’s cloud-based crowd mapping system, which was started with a few examples designed to track global emergencies.

But keep in mind that this kind of passive research carries its own risk. You are polling the general public at random, and don’t have an initial profile of your survey target. So, you would have to assume some of the automated research might be suspect. However, when research is raw and unfiltered, it is usually less prone to bias. The only qualifier is that all the unwitting contributors would be social media or cell phone users.

Take your own stab at crowdsourcing

Focusing on this topic has really sharpened my understanding of the differences between technical communications disciplines. Not everyone who holds the title of Technical Writer performs the same tasks. Often we are very different.

I invite you to share your differences in the comments below. Here are my initial jabs:

What type of research appeals most to you: active, or passive?
Can we trust passive information collection at the expense of tried-and-true structures?
Are we confined to the tired structures of outline and narrative, even as the world distances itself from traditional publication methods?
Jakob Nielsen’s article was posted in 2006. Do you see examples of the 90-90-1 rule in effect today?
The only real example of crowdsourcing discussed in this post is Crowd Mapping. What other methods for crowdsourcing have you experienced?
What crowdsourcing resources would you recommend for those just starting out?

Peer Review Strategies for Technical Writers

Geoff Hart — Mon, 21 May 2012 13:11:49 +0000

Learning from Your Colleagues

Writers’ groups have existed for as long as there have been writers. Their goal, other than providing an excuse to gather with kindred spirits over coffee or beer, is to obtain expert critiques of your writing. By understanding the comments and learning to distinguish between valid and invalid criticisms, you learn to write better stories. I’ve participated in such groups, and members have ranged from supporters who actually cared about my aspirations as a writer to ruthless egotists who mostly wanted to prove how much better they were than me. If you have a few idle moments, visit my fiction page to see whether I’ve learned anything from their feedback.

Most technical writers have encountered this approach in the form of peer review, but peer review most often has a different focus: to replace a full-time editor rather than to teach writers to write better. Because the goal is to improve the manuscript rather than the writer, honing writing skills often isn’t a priority. Editors, of course, aren’t writers; we’re rewriters. Nonetheless, we can still help each other learn. Since the goal is to discover our blind spots with help from colleagues who have different blind spots, editors can benefit as much as writers from this approach. The goal is identical for both professions: to learn what you miss when you revise manuscripts. Only the author of the manuscript being critiqued differs.

I’ve been part of two editors’ groups. First, I participated in the copyediting-l discussion group for 20 years. This taught me that, even in an online discussion by a virtual community, learning how and why colleagues do things differently is a great tool for honing your editorial skills. Unfortunately, technology constrains this approach: an e-mail forum can’t deal effectively with whole manuscripts, and must focus on specific examples taken out of the larger context. However, online collaboration tools such as Google docs or its progeny, Google Drive, eliminate that drawback.

Second, I do collaborative editing with several editors from around the world: one of us serves as the primary editor, and does a heavy substantive review of the manuscript plus the usual copyediting, and a colleague reviews our work to catch anything we missed and fix any errors we introduced. The goal is quality control rather than learning to edit better, but when I’ve found time to thoroughly review a colleague’s work, I often learn important things about my editorial flaws.

Though the potential to learn from one’s mistakes is implicit in writers’ and editors’ groups, a more focused approach is needed if the goal is to improve our skills. We can do this in person or online; the key is the process, not the medium. In-person groups are flexible because they’re unconstrained by software limitations, and offer the pleasures of human interaction; I’ve yet to see a satisfactory online replacement for sharing a beer. In-person reviews also bring you face to face with your tormentors, who understand they’ll become your victim in a future session should they treat you harshly. That encourages a gentler approach, but the drawback is the greater risk of embarrassment or humiliation or angry reactions to ill-considered comments. Another drawback is the difficulty of gathering a group at the same time in a single location. Online alternatives offer more flexibility because meetings don’t require travel and reviews can be asynchronous, conducted whenever members have time to participate. This also encourages participants to express themselves more freely, since they can’t see their colleagues, but loses the human touch and risks harsher reviews until reviewers learn diplomacy. An obvious hybrid approach would be a real-time review by participants using Google docs, and a video conference call alternative such as Google+ hangouts or Skype.

All this being said, how can technical communicators use writers’ and editors’ groups to improve writing and editing skills?

A Simple Process of Peer Review

The process begins with writing and revising a manuscript (for writers) or editing someone else’s manuscript (for editors). The goal is to produce the best manuscript you can, while remembering that nobody’s perfect and that blind spots or flaws in our skill set will inevitably produce imperfect results. Once you’re satisfied you can’t improve the manuscript further, submit a clean “final” version to the group for review. Editors can submit manuscripts containing tracked changes so participants can see what you’ve done, how you did it, and the results.

Each participant then reviews the manuscript. Clear overall guidelines should be determined by consensus, such as whether reviews must always be gently supportive, no matter how poor the manuscript, or whether a merciless flogging is occasionally justifiable.

Additional guidelines for a specific review should also be defined by the author or editor: participants may be free to critique any aspect of the manuscript, or constrained to focus on a single class of errors such as imprecision or verbosity. Neophytes benefit from an unconstrained approach in which any error is fair game; this reveals a long list of things they’ll need to learn. Experienced writers and editors can narrow the focus to learning new solutions for new challenges in technical communication, such as single-sourcing or using a constrained English vocabulary.

After completing the peer reviews, discuss what you missed or got wrong. For distributed teams of technical communicators, who often work in different time zones, asynchronous reviews may be necessary: edits and comments are submitted using revision tracking, and the person being evaluated must independently integrate the comments, supported by e-mail or a phone call to request explanations or propose alternatives. Asynchronous works, but a synchronous review is more effective: it takes advantage of a group’s ability to negotiate consensus on an issue; uses disagreements as a tool for learning the difference between subjective and objective problems; reveals additional comments or solutions inspired by another member’s ideas; and teaches each reviewer something about their own blind spots. Best of all, it builds a sense of teamwork.

Once the discussion is complete and consensus (including an agreement to disagree) is reached, the writer or editor must implement the necessary changes and create a list of learning priorities. Prioritize the most serious problems, the problems that occur most frequently, or both, depending on your needs and the needs of your employer. Use these priorities to develop a plan for detecting and solving each problem. One effective approach is to make a separate pass through a document for each prioritized problem, such as subject–verb accord. By avoiding the distraction that comes from trying to grasp all a manuscript’s problems simultaneously, you gradually learn to spot that problem. Once that ability becomes subconscious, start learning to solve the next problem on your list.

You can teach yourself to check specific details in several ways, ranging from checklists that guide your revision to macros that highlight a list of problematic words so you can’t miss them. (I use the latter approach to help me cope with my blindness to excessive use of adjectives and adverbs in my fiction.) The best approach depends on your specific needs, the nature of the manuscript, and whether you can coerce your software to solve some aspect of the problem, as in the example of highlighting words. Problems that are difficult to describe in a way your software can emulate tend to require simpler or less technology-focused solutions, such as checklists that remind you what to watch out for.

Use the feedback from reviewers to learn at least two solutions for any problem, since few solutions work in all cases. Having alternatives increases the range of problems you can solve, and increases your speed at solving them; when one solution won’t work, move on to your alternative solution rather than wasting time trying to invent a solution. Over time, you’ll gradually learn which solutions work best in specific situations and will apply the best solution without hesitation.

Repeat the peer review process as needed. Occasionally ask for unconstrained reviews to avoid frustrating your colleagues by tying their hands and to identify new problems to work on. But when you face a specific problem, ask for a constrained review that will efficiently teach you to recognize and solve that specific problem.

The Learning for Technical Communicators

Making mistakes is an inevitable part of learning to write and edit, and it’s never easy having others rub your face in your incompetence. This is why every editor should write something that will be reviewed by a group: having your own flaws revealed teaches empathy for what your authors feel, and teaches you to edit gently and constructively rather than maliciously. I’ve also found, as have many others, that I learn better from making mistakes and correcting them than from simply reading about solutions.

To improve your skill, learn to ask why? whenever you get something wrong: Did you not understand the subject? Was your writing or revision process deficient? Were you simply careless? Each problem requires a different solution, but the solutions have something in common: each begins with understanding and continues with a desire to fix the problem. If you misunderstood the subject, improve your understanding. I mostly edit science manuscripts, and periodically need to pause and read about a subject until I understand it well enough to edit well. If your process was deficient, find a better process. I’ve learned I can’t edit well in a single pass, and must edit manuscripts at least twice: once to do all the heavy work, a second time the next day to catch anything I missed, and a third time if the manuscript is particularly difficult or if even small errors are unacceptable. Finally, use software to compensate for carelessness. Write macros to automate whatever you can, since this frees up mental energy and concentration to focus on tasks you can’t automate. Use timer software to remind you to take a break and breathe, or set your e-mail software to check e-mail no more frequently than every two hours to avoid the temptation of continuously checking email.

Where a sentence or phrase isn’t clearly wrong, yet has received criticism from others, don’t write this off as a matter of opinion. Finding out why the disagreement exists often reveals important insights into how readers process your writing, and helps you adapt your approach to meet their needs. Sometimes you’ll learn alternatives that may not be optimal for the current manuscript, but that might be useful under different circumstances. Resist the temptation to indulge in absolutes: peer review will teach you that writing is far more subjective in a visceral way you can’t appreciate until you’ve been through the process.

Essentials

Words are the most flexible tools we’ve invented. Unfortunately, that flexibility lets them bend in directions other than the one we intended. It also means there’s more than one way to communicate most thoughts, and that there’s rarely an objectively “right” choice and sometimes not even an objectively “better” choice. Context and audience often provide guidance. For example, if you’re communicating with audiences for whom English is a second language, you learn to avoid phrasal verbs when simpler verbs do the job equally well. Except in fiction, you learn to avoid idioms or obscure allusions. An under-appreciated benefit of peer review is that it can reveal your personal quirks (my preference for parenthetical phrases, for instance) or hobgoblins (styles you dislike but that aren’t actually wrong). If nothing else, you’ll learn to be tolerant of other ways of doing something: a particular style may please you, but if it doesn’t please your audience, you need to adapt to their way of reading.

Tact, diplomacy, and gentleness are essential. Writers who frequently undergo editorial or peer review gradually develop a thick skin, but enduring the slings and arrows of outrageous reviewers never becomes pleasant. Even when criticism must be pointed, it doesn’t need to be harsh; a corollary to Occam’s principle (“make it as painless as possible, but no more than that”) is worth keeping in mind. There’s always a way to make a review helpful (e.g., by offering a solution) rather than merely critical. After 25 years of editing, I’ve learned that a gentle, helpful approach builds powerful loyalty from my authors and an eagerness to discuss and achieve consensus, which is much more pleasant than engaging in power games over who’s right.

Reciprocity is also important. Everyone should have the experience of being reviewed to learn empathy for those whose work you will review. Everyone must review someone else’s work. That way, nobody ends up doing all the work and everyone’s voice is heard.

If you’re an employee, try to make peer reviews an ongoing part of your workflow. This transforms review into an activity that is rewarded and encouraged by your managers. Managers are easily convinced when they see that the time and cost of reviews is repaid by better manuscript quality. Although it’s tempting to focus on rewarding reviewers for finding and fixing errors, that’s only optimal when you’re evaluating the work of someone for whom this is the primary job (i.e., an editor). Even then, you’ll get better results if the goal is to help each group member improve their skills (teamwork) rather than seeking better ways to criticize each other (“beatings will continue until morale improves”). Few of us are sufficiently masochistic to enjoy reviews, but they become more palatable when enduring them earns us better performance appraisals.

Oh, the humanity!

I’ve frequently written that editing is a human endeavor, and remembering this is the key to forming a successful peer review group that will improve both manuscript quality and the skills of the writers and editors responsible for those manuscripts. Maintaining the human touch turns what would otherwise be a painful process into an activity that builds a sense of community.

TechWhirl: Technical Communication Recap for May 18, 2012

TechWhirl — Fri, 18 May 2012 20:22:04 +0000

This week’s update on technical communication and the TechWhirl community is supported by Platinum sponsor ComponentOne & their Doc-To-Help Help Authoring Tool | http://bit.ly/doc-to-help

The preparations for attending a technical communication event such as the STC Summit are always exciting—akin to the two-weeks-after-code-freeze-write-the-whole-user-manual exciting. TechWhirl will be there, as an exhibitor (stop by booth 115), as Lightning Talk participants (We’re scheduled on Wednesday), and providers of an STC Summit Pinterest Board and Storify wrapup (publishes next week). So while Twitter posts abound with notices about upcoming seminars, meetups, and departure announcements for those already heading to Chicago, Al and Connie are wrapping the normal week’s activities and just getting around to packing.

It was a busy content week for us as well, and Al’s interview with Alan Houser is an entertaining and informative look at what’s ahead. Tony Chung’s first of a series on crowd-sourcing explores an area that’s already impacting technical communicators, and Laurie Johnson’s look at conference alternatives should give you some great resources for professional development opportunities on a tight budget.

If you can’t make it to Chicago, have no fear, TechWhirl is still on the job, providing great new content on the magazine, access to the archives, news from all over, and our very own tech comm jobs board. We encourage you to be a part of the community by reading the latest news and features, and following and posting in the TechWhirl email discussion list.

Have a terrific weekend

-The gang at TechWhirl

	Alternatives to Face-to-face Technical Communication ConferencesFew can dispute the benefits of attending a professional conference. Whether you attend the STC annual conference, WritersUA, LavaCon, SIGDOC, IPCC, or one of the numerous other technical communication-oriented meetings, you attend for the opportunities–to sharpen your current skills, learn new skills, catch up with tool and technology trends, pick the brains of leaders in the field, and network, network, network. Let’s take a look at four lower-cost options that can provide many of the same benefits: webinars, virtual conferences, unconferences, and twitter chats.
	Interesting Times: Challenges and Opportunities for Technical CommunicationDuring a talk with Alan Houser, the incoming President for the Society for Technical Communication (STC), we touched on his background, company, work in the STC, and his plans for the upcoming year. Alan talked about the Chinese proverb or the Chinese curse, which says “may you live in interesting times,” and how the current economic turmoil is impacting friends, colleagues and relatives. His vision for the STC in the coming year includes “working to assist our members while we leverage what I think is the most exciting time in the history of this profession.”
	Crowdsourcing: The New Black?What’s in a name? To some, the specifics of a name mean absolutely nothing. To others, that same name means absolutely everything. While some believe as Shakespeare wrote: “…a rose by any other name, its smell is sweet…”, Technical Writers in general are more attached to their chosen terms. Today’s term is “Crowdsourcing.” What is it? What is its relevance to technical communication today? And, the bigger question: Why does my iPhone insist on Capitalizing the C?
	Technical Writing Poll: Best TV Shows Set in ChicagoIf you enjoyed last week’s poll, or tend to indulge in the couch potato forms of recreation when not doing technical writing chores, then you should be ecstatic about this week’s technical writing poll. We know that there were loads of great movies set in Chicago, now it’s time for you to vote on the wonders of the small screen.

Tech Comm News

Social Media and the Chance to Follow TechWhirl:

Our Google Plus Page – what’s happening behind the scenes | http://goo.gl/SO0R4
Will you be our Friend? Please, you know you want to click | http://goo.gl/tDrW7
Want all this TechWhirl goodness a few characters @ a time | http://goo.gl/itjDg
Updates from TechWhirl delivered to your email in box | http://bit.ly/tjshxU
Or, try our RSS feed (great on Flipboard) | http://goo.gl/msLzu

SPONSOR-Luv

We want to send a very special “thank you” to our sponsors for their support.

Platinum: Adobe Systems Incorporated

Gold: ComponentOne Software, Madcap Software

Silver: Society for Technical Communication (STC), Vancouver Island University

Alternatives to Face-to-face Technical Communication Conferences

Laurie Johnson — Thu, 17 May 2012 15:00:45 +0000

Trends in Low-Cost Skill Development & Networking

Introduction

Few can dispute the benefits of attending a professional conference. Whether you attend the STC annual conference, WritersUA, LavaCon, SIGDOC, IPCC, or one of the numerous other technical communication-oriented meetings, you attend for the opportunities–to sharpen your current skills, learn new skills, catch up with tool and technology trends, pick the brains of leaders in the field, and network, network, network.

While the benefits are clear, justifying the expense associated with conference attendance can be challenging. Especially in years where your organization doesn’t support conference attendance or where a colleague gets to attend.

Let’s take a look at four lower-cost options that can provide many of the same benefits: webinars, virtual conferences, unconferences, and twitter chats. These aren’t the only alternatives, by any means. We’ve list some additional resources at the end of the article, and we’d love to get your suggestions in the comments!

Technical Communication Webinars Abound

Probably the most familiar conference alternative is the webinar, a web-based seminar or presentation similar to a conference panel. Webinars are usually presented live. The content is often recorded and archived so it can be viewed later, but interaction even during live webinars is generally limited.

Live webinars offer good opportunities to hear thought leaders in technical communication, and to ask questions. For example, a recent free webinar presented by Content Rules featured Scott Abel, Val Swisher, Jack Molisani and Sarah O’Keefe. The moderated session was an engaging discussion of the future of technical communication. Content Rules and DCL both have some great, free webinars that tend to be broadly applicable. MadCap and Adobe offer tool-oriented webinars that can help you gain knowledge. STC offers frequent webinars, and while the live webinars are relatively inexpensive, the free archives are only available to members. Translation vendors, content management companies, and other tech comm tool and service providers also offer webinars.

Webinars involve no travel, and are often free or low-cost (though some webinars can be costly). If you can catch a live webinar, you can often ask questions of the presenters, and possibly of other attendees, depending on the webinar setup. While webinars can offer some of the same information you might find at a conference, they aren’t as interactive. Like the traditional conference, webinars tend to be a one-to-many or few-to-many experience, with a select presenter or two presenting on a defined topic. Opportunities for networking and engaging other participants are pretty limited, though more live webinars now use social media for real-time and ongoing discussion. Webinars can also wrap sales-oriented content around great tool or skill knowledge, and sometimes end up feeling more like a product pitch than an educational opportunity.

Network from the Comfort of Home at Virtual Conferences

Virtual conferences offer the scheduled, multi-presentation format of a traditional conference, but involve no travel. They tend to be free or low-cost. Depending on the conference, there may be little chance for virtual networking, or virtual networking may be a key part of the conference experience.

International Freelancers Day is a large, free and online conference that takes place every September. The 2011 conference included an opening keynote, closing statements, and two concurrent presentation tracks on topics ranging from social media to financial management, and lots in between. The presentations themselves are relatively short, between 15 and 20 minutes, but in between each session is a networking period of between 40 and 45 minutes. Organizers have made an effort to maximize the time and opportunity for attendees to interact with one another, perhaps coming as close to the rich hallway conversations that are one of the most important unofficial components of traditional conferences.

STC held a one-day, online virtual conference in 2011. The conference was moderated by Saul Carliner, and was focused on putting research into practice. It was well-received by attendees. Reviewer Bonnie Graham Gonzalez enjoyed the ability to chat with other attendees without interrupting the presenter. Of course, being able to attend a conference without paying for airfare or hotel, and possibly while wearing pajamas, are distinct advantages, as well. While Cuddihy specifically mentions the chat function as an advantage, the STC virtual conference schedule doesn’t indicate that there was any time specifically devoted to networking or participant interaction.

Unconferences

Unlike traditional conferences or virtual conferences, unconferences are spontaneous and participant-driven. TechWhirl’s own Mike McCallister describes unconferences this way: “One of the basic principles of unconferences is that at traditional conferences, the best conversations are the ones that take place in the hallways between and outside of the planned sessions.” Unconferences, explains McCallister, try to bring those discussions into the sessions. The sessions themselves are determined at the beginning of the conference, rather than weeks or months before the event. Any attendee can propose a topic, and active participation is the rule rather than the exception.

Unconferences relevant to technical communication are plentiful. InfoCamp is an unconference that started in Seattle in 2007, but now has events in several locations, including Canada and Germany. Attendees are “people excited by information,” and the list of presentations from Portland’s 2012 InfoCamp certainly displays that enthusiasm. In October 2011, the STC Carolina chapter and the NC State SIGDOC chapter teamed up to produce SpeedCon, an unconference focused on communication. Potential presenters pitched their ideas at the beginning of the event, and the resulting slate of sessions covered topics ranging from blogging to resumes. Another unconference with strong ties to technical communication is WordCamp, unconferences for WordPress users, developers, and everyone in between.

Agenda developed at the Citizen Journalism Unconference (photo by Rico Shen)

Unconferences are free or very inexpensive, and offer attendees a chance to demonstrate expertise on a topic. For attendees who have been thinking of presenting at a larger or more traditional conference, an unconference may offer an opportunity to try out ideas, and to try presenting in front of a group. Unconferences place emphasis on participation and rich discussion, rather than passive consumption of conference presentations. The events are mostly face-to-face, like traditional conferences, which is both a benefit and a potential drawback: lots of networking opportunities, but may require travel, adding to the overall cost of attendance.

Twitter Chats: Focused, Moderated Technical Communication Conversation

Twitter offers plenty discursive opportunities, as most TechWhirl readers are aware. But, while we can glean plenty of new and interesting tidbits from our twitter feeds, sometimes we can benefit from a more focused, directed interchange – something like what we can get through a twitter chat. According to Anne Gentle, a twitter chat is “periods of time set aside to talk on Twitter with a particular hashtag collecting and aggregating all the tweets within the time period.” The chats are moderated, usually with a topic announced ahead of time.

Search for information on twitter chat and technical communication, and one chat is present in most of the top results: TCchat2.0 (#tcchat20). This twitter chat covers a wide variety of topics and has great participation from some high-profile tech comm names. Recent topics include content strategy, DITA, and an entire month of chats on global considerations in technical communication.There are twitter chats covering marketing, PR, social media, blogging, and more. A public spreadsheet in Google Docs lists over 600 twitter chats.

Like most of the other options discussed in this article, twitter chats involve no travel. They are also free, but a lot more freewheeling and participatory than the average webinar or virtual conference. Many twitter chats are archived for future reference – in fact, a great twitter chat about the topic of this article is archived here.

Twitter chats can also be a great way to showcase your knowledge. Julie Norris, the moderator of TCchat2.0, notes: “With Twitter chats, the ability to build your online presence, to show your expertise is unparalleled. You also never know who may be watching a chat. Perhaps there’s an employer, watching to see what a potential candidate is saying online, what info they’re sharing, how they’re received and how their input is valued.”

Twitter chat downsides? Depending on how many participants are involved in a chat, the tweets may fly by quite fast, making the chat difficult to follow. Chats, like anything on twitter, are public, so it’s important to consider the professional impact of your tweets. Also, while chats can be extremely dynamic, they tend to be focused around one theme and occur over a period of an hour or two, while traditional conferences tend to cover a range of topics.

Conclusion

If your employer’s travel budget, or your own, can support travel and conference attendance, then take advantage of the opportunities for networking and professional growth. If attending a conference is unlikely, however, there are plenty of opportunities for ongoing skill development, knowledge transfer, and networking available online. Even if you are able to attend a conference or two, these alternatives are worth exploring: build your reputation, look into tools you haven’t used before, or explore a different aspect of our sprawling and constantly-changing industry.

Other Resources and Ideas for Keeping Current

Association of Technical Communicators (ATC)

Technical Writing World (TWW)

Meetups

LinkedIn groups

MySTC (for members and non-members)

Local chapters of STC, ASTD, UPA, IABC, and other professional or industry-specific organizations

Thanks to Julie Norris and Mike McCallister for their generous input and expertise on twitter chats and unconferences, respectively.

Tech Writer This Week for May 17, 2012

Craig Cardimon — Thu, 17 May 2012 08:00:14 +0000