"The Surveyor's Transit" Appendix I in Theory and Practice of Technical Writing by Samuel Chandler Earle |
The
best old book that I found was Theory and
Practice of Technical Writing by Samuel Chandler Earle, New York: MacMillan
Company, 1911 (301 + vi pages). I borrowed it from the UT Library. It was still
catalogued under the old Dewey Decimal system and stacked in a section that
smelled more like a library than the library. After an introduction of three
chapters in 49 pages on basic principles of good writing, Earle gives
criticisms of 24 examples, from the surveyor’s transit to the involute gear.
The examples are informative on their own merits, fascinating examples of
machines and methods of a century ago; and Earle’s commentaries are positive.
Not
so good was Technical Writing, Second
Edition, by T. A. Rickard, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1923 (337
+ xii pages). (The first edition was 1920.) Rickard just gives examples of bad
writing and explains why they are bad. He natters. He is not wrong, but neither is
he helpful.
Technical Writing by Sajitha Jayaprakash, Himilaya Pub., 2008. |
Both
of those came up on an Internet search that pointed to an article on the history
of technical writing from the website of Sajitha Jayaprakash (here). She is the author of several textbooks on the
subject. She cites Rickard as the author of a previous work from 1908. I found
a listing in Worldcat.org: Rickard, T.A. (Thomas Arthur), 1864- Guide
to technical writing. San Francisco, Mining and Scientific Pr., 1910.
However, curiously perhaps, Jayaprakash says without further clarification:
“Samuel Earle is hence considered to be the father of technical writing.” I
agree that Earle does the better job, but Rickard preceded him. And I have no
way to judge that first effort, though the second edition to the later
publication does not hold much promise. I do believe that Rickard would have had harsh words for Jayaprakash who wrote: “Technical
writing, as you know is systematic writing of instruction for the users to
perform a given task. It is also about documenting information that users can
use.”
The
problem of when technical writing began as a separate classification rests on the
fact that for 2500 years, just about all writing was technical. The Gilgamesh and Argonautica and other myths stood apart from the vast body of
philosophy for which there was no clear distinction between living the good
life and discovering the mating habits of cetaceans. It was all knowledge. It
was presented as fact, or at least as argument, and there was no doubt that it
was all intended to inform the reader about the world and their place in it.
What
changed?
The
Wikipedia article on Technical Writing points out: “However, unlike the past, where skills were handed down
through oral traditions, no one besides the inventors knew how to use these new
devices. Writing thus became the fastest and most effective way to disseminate
information, and writers who could document these devices were desired.”
That
claim is supported by an excellent article, “Constructing a Contextual History
of English Language Technical Writing,” by Stephen Crabbe, Journal of Translation and Technical Communication Research, (Published
by Leona Van Vaerenbergh and Klaus Schubert), Vol. 5. Nu. 1. (2012) Page 40,
online here.)
Crabbe
differentiates scientific writing from technical writing. The distinction is
subtle. Aristotle on the parts of animals and Aristarchus on the motions of the
planets were for the privileged few. More deeply, writing about the work of
Eratosthenes of Cyrene in Circumference (reviewed here), Nicolas Nicastro asserted that as insightful as the ancient sages were, science was a modern invention. In that
same context, Crabbe claims that technical writing originated with the
Industrial Revolution.
“However, it is generally
accepted that the transition to factory-based, machine-powered industry can be
traced to Britain during this period. The new machines could be invented, but workers
with experience of constructing, operating and maintaining them did not exist. As
a result, the pre-industrial oral tradition of passing technical knowledge from
one generation to the next became less effective and relevant.
[…]
The Mechanics Institute
was established in Glasgow in 1821, and its success resulted in the
establishment of new institutes in rapid succession in towns and cities across
Britain. Many leading manufacturers during the industrial revolution such as
the Eastern Counties Railway, Royal Arsenal and George Stephenson and Company
established new institutes. However, the purpose of much of this technical
knowledge dissemination was not necessarily altruistic. Workers required
instruction on how to operate the new mechanical inventions not for their
protection, but for the protection of what were often expensive and complicated
machines.
[…]
Manufacturers also needed
workers who could construct and maintain the new mechanical inventions. Mokyr
(2006) describes these workers as tens of thousands of literate mechanics and
craftsmen who were able to understand technical writing and illustrations. The
greater complexity of the new machines meant that oral descriptions of their
parts were increasingly insufficient to enable mechanics and craftsmen to
construct and maintain them.”
Be
warned, though: That same Wikipedia article on Technical Writing also cites "A
Brief History of Technical Communication" by Frederick M. O’Hara, Jr., of the
Montana State University (Billings) College of Technology online here. That work is flawed by ideological and
philosophical problems, but just empirically, O’Hara claims:
“A case can be made that the first software
documentation writer was Muhammad ibn Musa Al’Khowarizmi, a twelfth- century
Tashkent cleric who developed the concept of writing a detailed process to be
followed to achieve some goal, a technique employed in virtually all computer-
programming languages today. He published a book about his approach and named
his process the algorithm, a name that even today is used to refer to the
mathematical application of this method.”
The
truth is that the scholar did not give his own name to his method. The word
“algorithm” comes from a Latinization of Al-Khwarizmi’s name. He may well have
come from what we call Uzbekistan, but no source indicates that his family
originated in Tashkent, an old city in eastern Uzbekistan that is the modern
capital. Indeed, his origins were probably at the western margin in the place
called Khiva (Xorasm; Khorasan). All we know is that he did truly work in Baghdad
and lived about 780 to 850 CE (162 to 236 AH). And he wrote a book that we call
The Compendious Book on Calculation by
Completion and Balancing that was first translated into Latin by
Robert of Chester in 1145. So, the book came into the West in the 12th century, but contrary to O'Hara's claim, the author lived some 350 years earlier.
Another
common and erroneous assertion is that technical writing as we understand it began
with us. “However, most experts would
agree that the golden age of technical writing started with the invention of the computer.
“1986:
The American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) released
the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), which became the basis of
several subset markup languages, including HTML.” From “History of Technical Writing” by ProEdit, a contract and direct hire placement firm. The truth is that ANSI SGML was based on Donald Knuth’s TeX invented
ten years earlier and enthusiastically adopted. (See TUG the TeX User Group here.)
As
noted at the opening, the earliest textbooks on technical writing apparently
go back only to the beginning of the 20th century. But Scientific American was founded in 1845,
and despite (or perhaps thanks to) changes in ownership, it has remained the
longest-running periodical in America.
PREVIOUSLY ON NECESSARY FACTS
I have a somewhat negative view of tech writing because they seem to just restate things verbosely. Sometimes there's a a button labelled Var Osc Mode. I look in the manual, and they've padded it: "The Var Osc Mode control toggles variable oscillator mode. " It's unlikely anyone who understands exactly what that means would not have understood by reading the button.
ReplyDeleteI like them, though, when I have to write verbose documentation for regulatory purposes. I can do diagrams and rough explanations, which they turn into FDA docs. But I question how valuable those docs are. It depends on how good the engineer and tech writer are and whether they really work together to get good doc or if they just generate it as an afterthought to check off a box.
Technical Communication has been evolved in the West to ancient Greece and Rome as well as to Sumerian, and ancient Egypt.Technical communication was firstly handed orally which contained descriptions of scientific and astronomical observations. During the Renaissance period(1400-1600 AD),
ReplyDeleteEvolution of Technical Communication
Wonderful contents thank u for sharing.
ReplyDeleteTechnical Communication Evolution