[HN Gopher] Unsolicited Advice for Technology Writers (2014)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Unsolicited Advice for Technology Writers (2014)
        
       Author : thomasjbevan
       Score  : 25 points
       Date   : 2021-06-10 12:25 UTC (10 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (thefrailestthing.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (thefrailestthing.com)
        
       | geocrasher wrote:
       | 11. Don't refer to anything as simple just because it is simple
       | to you.
        
         | combatentropy wrote:
         | A post three days ago highlighted comments here that had the
         | phrase "why not simply":
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27415725
        
         | farleykr wrote:
         | The article could do with more substance overall but this is
         | one of my biggest pet peeves and I appreciate it being pointed
         | out. I think the tendency of some tech articles/tutorials to
         | refer to things as simple is part of the faux-friendly-jokey
         | attitude that a lot of tech writing adopts--especially on sites
         | like Medium. That and emojis and gifs. I tend to close an
         | article/tutorial as soon as I see an emoji or a gif.
        
           | dredmorbius wrote:
           | If you're looking for substance, the article itself is from a
           | related blog on technology, and there's a book compiling ~100
           | highlight articles from that. The short list is just that: a
           | short list.
        
           | dont__panic wrote:
           | At the very least, gifs should only play when you click them
           | in an article that I'm actually expected to read. Do other
           | people actually enjoy reading static text with a giant low-
           | resolution flickering image on screen next to it? It's just
           | so distracting to me. Seems like Developer Advocates love to
           | do that sort of thing in blog posts.
        
       | rcpt wrote:
       | "The craft of scientific writing" is a great book btw.
        
       | drewcoo wrote:
       | > in no particular order ...
       | 
       | And what follows is an ordered list. Of mostly unsubstantiated
       | nonsense explained in bloated language. That opposite of what I'd
       | expect from good tech writing.
       | 
       | Is this a satire? It feels like something out of McSweeney's.
        
         | watwut wrote:
         | Every list is ordered. "No particular order" means "dont think
         | they are ordered by importance".
         | 
         | It is list of authors pet peeves, stuff he would like writers
         | to follow. I did not found the language bloated, it was easy to
         | understand.
        
         | projektfu wrote:
         | Most unordered lists like this should be numbered so you can
         | later refer to the points by number.
        
         | combatentropy wrote:
         | > And what follows is an ordered list.
         | 
         | Isn't it just a numbered list? You can number things, but that
         | doesn't mean it's in order of importance, just the order it
         | popped into the writer's head.
         | 
         | > Of mostly unsubstantiated nonsense explained in bloated
         | language. That opposite of what I'd expect from good tech
         | writing.
         | 
         | I agree. At first I thought this was for "tech writing" in the
         | sense of user manuals. But this is for journalists. And it's
         | more just a vague rant.
        
         | munificent wrote:
         | The headline is confusing, but I think the author means advice
         | for "people who write about technnology", not "technical
         | writers" the profession. The second sentence is pretty clear on
         | the intended audience.
        
         | cedricd wrote:
         | Thanks. I was thinking the same thing. The language is hard to
         | read.
         | 
         | http://paulgraham.com/simply.html
        
       | johncla99 wrote:
       | Wait...I was a tech writer for 20+ years at a major software
       | developer. To me, a tech writer is someone who documents apps or
       | APIs. If true, I don't see what this article has to do with tech
       | writers.
        
         | combatentropy wrote:
         | It isn't for that kind of tech writer. It is "for pundits,
         | journalists, bloggers, and assorted scribblers who write about
         | technology".
        
       | dredmorbius wrote:
       | Desplite the original title (HN's clarified it), the topic isn't
       | _technical writing_ as might be presumed, but _writing on
       | technology_ , and mostly the sort of pie-eyed, overly credulous
       | and bombastically optimistic variety that's often found. Even,
       | occasionally, on the pages on Hacker News.
       | 
       | The list is a set of tired tropes which occur with some
       | frequency.
       | 
       | It's short. There are links to expanded discussion. The context
       | is a 10-year blog of the author's on the larger topic of
       | technology and technological criticism, and yes, there's a book,
       | pay-what-you-can, CC-licensed: https://gumroad.com/l/CWRfq
       | 
       | I might have added, substituted, or amended a few items, most
       | especially that there is actually something of a _history_ and
       | _philosophy_ of technological criticism, but that 's me. The
       | latter point _is_ picked up in the blog at large and the book.
       | 
       | For an item I very nearly passed over on account of its original
       | title, this is actually an intruiging find. Thanks to
       | thomasbjeven for turning it up, and L.M. Sacasas for writing it.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-06-10 23:03 UTC)