<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How to devalue writers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.farbey.co.uk/index.php/2009/09/how-to-devalue-writers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.farbey.co.uk/index.php/2009/09/how-to-devalue-writers/</link>
	<description>on technical writing, content strategy, information design, and all the whitespace in between</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:16:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://www.farbey.co.uk/index.php/2009/09/how-to-devalue-writers/comment-page-1/#comment-416</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:16:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.farbey.co.uk/?p=292#comment-416</guid>
		<description>Another easy way to devalue technical communication is to place developers in charge of defining how and what makes the doc possible. For example, the exercises that best describe software from an instructional design point of view are often role-based, and require a subtle understanding of how the application will be used by people in different roles, in a business context.

QA testing is about stress testing the application to ensure it is coded well. The QA tests (and data) are written with a different perspective, Simply saying &#039;all you need to do is look at the QA tests&#039; is developer-itis.

Worse, it leads to project plans where the documentation is considered as having the same lifecycle as the code.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another easy way to devalue technical communication is to place developers in charge of defining how and what makes the doc possible. For example, the exercises that best describe software from an instructional design point of view are often role-based, and require a subtle understanding of how the application will be used by people in different roles, in a business context.</p>
<p>QA testing is about stress testing the application to ensure it is coded well. The QA tests (and data) are written with a different perspective, Simply saying &#8216;all you need to do is look at the QA tests&#8217; is developer-itis.</p>
<p>Worse, it leads to project plans where the documentation is considered as having the same lifecycle as the code.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jean</title>
		<link>http://www.farbey.co.uk/index.php/2009/09/how-to-devalue-writers/comment-page-1/#comment-197</link>
		<dc:creator>Jean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:59:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.farbey.co.uk/?p=292#comment-197</guid>
		<description>David, you make some good points here. It seems to me that many IT companies only value technical ability. Documentation is an afterthought. Also gone by the wayside are training, mentoring and simply being &#039;nice&#039; to one another in the workplace.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David, you make some good points here. It seems to me that many IT companies only value technical ability. Documentation is an afterthought. Also gone by the wayside are training, mentoring and simply being &#8216;nice&#8217; to one another in the workplace.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

