Response to Alan Porter's article

[jenfanguy]

Although I agree with pieces of Mr. Porter’s argument, I believe in a
different model. While it is essential to produce consistent documents
and materials, it has been my experience that consistency and quality
can be achieved in the parallel model that Mr. Porter argues against.

However, in order to achieve quality in the parallel model, there must
be a strict observance to standards. Standards must be outlined for
every type of document or material produced, and they must be followed
painstakingly. This is not out of our reach. After all, attention to
detail is what we technical communicators are often praised the
loudest for.

It is this complete control over a document - from conception to
publication - that allows us to make judgment calls that would
ultimately benefit our end user. For example, if standards call for a
list but the material would be better represented in a table, we can
make that change. An editor far removed from the material may not be
able to see the difference. At times, only the original author is
familiar enough with the content to be able to make these subtle, but
affective, changes.

That is why I argue that technical publishing is, in fact, an art. As
technical communicators, we have the talent and ability to produce
consistent, high quality materials while sometimes stepping off the
beaten path.

~Jennifer Fanguy