[HN Gopher] Ask HN: How to level up your technical writing?
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: How to level up your technical writing?
Hi fellow HNers! I have a fairly strong background in cloud system
and application architecture. However I feel that I'm sometimes
limited by my technical writing skills to communicate my ideas and
concepts. Any advice on how to take ones technical writing skills
to the next level? I'm willing to do what it takes, being online
courses, contributing to OSS process work or what else you might
suggest. Looking forward to tap into the HN hive mind on this
topic! Thanks, Max
Author : maxekman
Score : 241 points
Date : 2022-06-24 08:23 UTC (1 days ago)
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| One thing: do it a lot. Set a time every day and practice. Some
| prompts to get you started:
|
| 1. Write a white paper on the application of a piece of OSS that
| you like.
|
| 2. Write a usage description for one of your one-off
| projects/scripts.
|
| 3. Write a technical paper about an algorithm you used in a
| specific instance.
|
| 4. Explain the solutions to classic interview problems (eg binary
| tree reversal) in written form.
|
| 5. At work, write up brief pitches for new product improvements
| you have.
|
| In all cases, consider the audience and what needs to come across
| to accomplish your goal.
| benreesman wrote:
| I have failed deeply and fundamentally as a technologist by not
| being able to explain the technology in plain language.
|
| I now regard it as a minimum bar that _I can explain the broad
| outlines in plain language._
|
| Anyone who can't is is a fucking fraud.
| ghaff wrote:
| While I see where you're coming from, get deep enough into
| specialized concepts and a "plain language" explanation that
| assumes no prior knowledge is going to have to hand wave away a
| huge amount of detail and may not even be completely accurate
| in many respects. Yes, you can probably give an intelligent
| person the gist of what's going on, perhaps by analogy, but it
| may not really be an "explanation."
| coffeefirst wrote:
| Start writing short stories and essays about literally whatever
| is on your mind that day.
|
| Every type of writing you practice makes you better at every
| other kind of writing. The part of your brain that learns to make
| fiction flow will do the exact same thing for complex technical
| documents.
|
| Also, find someone you think is amazing at technical writing and
| ask them to sit down with you and revise something you wrote.
| Study what they want to change and why.
| Torwald wrote:
| Sit down with people from the target audience and let them use
| the thing you are going to write about. Observe where they
| struggle. Let them articulate what they are doing and why. You
| wouldn't believe...
| delecti wrote:
| As a first step, try and pay attention to things that annoy or
| frustrate you about _other_ technical writing, and don 't do
| those things.
|
| I also try to assume my audience is a moron. Not because they
| are, but because any time you're doing technical writing, you
| presumably know more than them. Force yourself to not assume
| things are obvious just because you're familiar with them. IMO
| it's better for technical writing to be a tiny bit patronizing
| than to be lacking in vital detail. One specific example here is
| to either define any acronym before using it, include a glossary,
| or both.
| ericmay wrote:
| The best way in my opinion is to write, and write more. Once you
| write your first doc, send it to someone who you believe may be
| your target audience and have them critique it. What's confusing
| to them? What's not?
|
| It's no different than writing code or writing a book. It takes
| time, iteration, and focus.
|
| Personally happy to review a doc or two and provide feedback if
| that is helpful. I run a docs site for my company.
| Yenrabbit wrote:
| This! The best way to get better at writing is to write :)
| silasdb wrote:
| Suggestions:
|
| https://diataxis.fr/
|
| https://stevelosh.com/blog/2013/09/teach-dont-tell/
| xena wrote:
| Write more
| MrPowers wrote:
| Blogging & measuring average time on page is a great way to see
| if you're able to write content that's relevant and engaging for
| readers. Average time on page should be at least 5 minutes for a
| blog post.
|
| Improving open source project READMEs and documentation is
| another great way to practice writing.
|
| I am writing an O'Reilly book now and having a professional
| editor will help you learn the common errors you're making.
|
| You should try to write short paragraphs, short sentences, and at
| a 4th-6th grade reading level. Good writing for literature is a
| lot different that good technical writing.
|
| A good novelist may write at a 12th grade reading level, may use
| complicated words, and will use literary devices like allegory
| and foreshadowing.
|
| A good technical writer should explain a concept in the most
| simple way possible. They should explicitly avoid literary
| devices like foreshadowing - their goal is to explain the concept
| in a straightforward manner. They should also avoid big words and
| long sentences. A large portion of technical readers are not
| native English speakers, so only the most basic words should be
| used.
| nicbou wrote:
| I disagree with using time on page as a metric. If you can
| answer the question in half the time, good for your readers.
|
| In many cases, people want the tl;dr only, so I try to give
| them that first.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Don't focus exclusively on improving your text. Supplement your
| writing with pictures or diagrams to support your idea or
| process.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| Your HN handle is from 2016 and has 508 karma. You could probably
| learn a lot by trying to explain stuff here in comments and see
| if it clicks with folks.
|
| Benefits: You get prompt feedback as to the quality of your
| writing. You may build a reputation.
|
| Downside: That feedback may not exactly be _sugar coated._
| maxekman wrote:
| Really good suggestion, I have not been very active commenting
| here. Thanks!
| DonHopkins wrote:
| After writing a lot of text, print it out, take it outside if the
| weather's nice, put away your laptop, tablet, and phone, sit down
| with a pen, read over the entire document, and mark up the paper
| with your pen.
|
| It's a much better experience and result than reading on a
| screen, editing it while you're reading, getting distracted,
| jumping back and forth between doing other things.
| sasaf5 wrote:
| And on the next iteration, change the column width a little.
| anon1094 wrote:
| 3 recommendations: 1. Write more. 2. Write
| clearly. 3. Know your audience.
|
| We're writing for engineers, not for entertainment. Release a
| technical article every week.
| mishftw wrote:
| When I left high school for college (to pursue engineering) I was
| quite envious of my friends in the liberal arts - they were
| assigned papers all the time and I had no outlet for writing
| (something I enjoyed quite a bit).
|
| I have realized that written/technical communication is a great
| differentiator.
|
| I journal every day but specifically to your question I would say
| just start writing.
|
| Knowing your audience is key. I usually include an executive
| summary section at the top of any design document or product
| requirements document for a high level view of why people should
| care. Then I dive into a background or history to give context.
| At the end of the day it's a narrative and follows similar arcs -
| just with more direct prose and specific facts. I'll also drop
| this resource here from the Pragmatic Engineer newsletter. [0]
|
| [0]: https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/software-
| engineer...
| maxekman wrote:
| Love your tip of how to structure a text. Thanks!
| bombcar wrote:
| Practice writing every day at all times.
|
| Replying to an email? Do the short summary at the top, then
| write a paragraph or two about the reasons/details/etc - these
| are also great references.
|
| Encounter an issue and solve it? Write up what it was and what
| fixed it on a wiki, blog post, even just an email to yourself.
|
| Hacker news? Write comments that are detailed.
| jacksnipe wrote:
| Couldn't agree more that narrative is the key. If you're
| telling a compelling story (which can look very different for
| different audiences), you kind of get the rest for free,
| because you will have the reader's attention.
| asicsp wrote:
| Check out this past discussion thread (post link as well as
| comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20061078
|
| Here's some technical writing courses:
| https://developers.google.com/tech-writing
|
| And here are some examples of good writing:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31630915
| teddyh wrote:
| Larry McEnerney's lecture _The Craft of Writing Effectively:_
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtIzMaLkCaM
| Tomte wrote:
| McEnerney's lectures are great, let me just add that he is from
| the very same "school of writing" (actually, the same faculty)
| as my recommendation, Joseph M. Williams.
|
| As is George Gopen who also has a wonderful book that is more
| into the finer points of where to stick which part of the
| sentence. Williams and also McEnerney's lecture are much more
| motivating.
| _sohan wrote:
| I took this idea from my PhD supervisor and found it to be
| incredibly useful.
|
| Before writing down a long form doc, make a quick mondmap
| answering the following:
|
| 1. What are the three core ideas you're writing about? 2. What
| are the three main criticisms / counter arguments against your
| ideas? 3. How do you plan to respond to the criticisms?
|
| Depending on the subject matter and length of the doc, you may
| need more or less than three. But see if you can get this mind
| map written first. Then, see if you're convinced the ideas are
| worthy of writing. Only then write the long form.
| _sohan wrote:
| *mindmap
| klodolph wrote:
| I've developed my skills by writing documentation, presentations,
| blog posts, in-depth articles, and Stack Overflow answers. I
| always start out by thinking about who my audience is and why
| they're reading what I wrote, and I always finish by trying to
| cut down the material I've written so it doesn't contain anything
| unnecessary.
|
| In technical writing, clarity reigns. Clarity above all else.
| Lists? Use bullet points. Topics? Make headings. Do two terms
| seem similar? Change your wording to make the differences
| obvious. Is there a technical term? Use it consistently. Are you
| using the same word in different senses? Use two different words.
| Using negatives? Use positives instead, they are easier to parse.
|
| If you are good at the details of writing, your thoughts and
| ideas become clearer, because clear writing exposes the flaws in
| your ideas.
|
| Recommended book: Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace.
|
| I also recommend finding a topic to blog about. You don't need to
| be an expert. Just keeping an active blog teaches you a lot about
| writing.
| no_identd wrote:
| I have a whole Twitter thread on that, here:
|
| https://twitter.com/no_identd/status/1220913617408864257
|
| Prompted by my discovery of this book:
|
| https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-10756-7 "A Math-
| Based Writing System for Engineers: Sentence Algebra & Document
| Algorithms", by Brad Henderson
|
| Edit:
|
| Altmetrics just revealed to me that apparently a cheesy corporate
| marketing video for it exists:
|
| https://youtu.be/X9vQoadsQ1I
|
| Amazing.
| gnuvince wrote:
| Haven't read it, but my reaction to the 2 minute video is
| "excrement" [1].
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjHORRHXtyI
| no_identd wrote:
| Well, yes, but tell that to the proof assistants, automated
| theorem provers, academic snowclone^W^H phrasal template
| banks, and highly bullet pointed lists of Corporate ISO9000
| series GRC Policy & Procedure Work Instruction Drafting Style
| Guide Manual Template Files as well as the resulting
| legislative outputs( via lobbying, lol). Cf. my points in the
| Twitter thread, on proforms, thematic relations, and one
| anaphora1.
|
| There exist only so many ways in which to formally answer
| arbitrary instances of the 7 fundamental questions (yes, 7,
| not 5--or six, like IBM's Zachman framework would have one
| believe.).
|
| 1 the Dalai Lama walks into a pizza place and asks: Can you
| make me one with everything?
| juskrey wrote:
| Write
| christophilus wrote:
| In general, I like to do something like this:
|
| Pick a product/ technology you're familiar with and which has
| great documentation.
|
| Go to their docs, and pick a page that is on a topic you know
| well.
|
| Read only the title of the page.
|
| Write the documentation.
|
| When you're done, compare your results with theirs. What headings
| did you choose vs theirs? Why do you think they chose the ones
| they did? How does your document flow vs theirs? How'd they
| illustrate the concepts vs you?
|
| It's an informative and fun exercise, at least to me.
| maxekman wrote:
| Really cool tip!
| sixhobbits wrote:
| We are running a course for exactly this! [0] Technically
| applications closed already but we will likely have some more
| space, or we will run another cohort soon so feel free to email
| me and I will try fit you in.
|
| I also keep a repository of my favourite books and some other
| resources here [1]
|
| And some very short advice we give to our writers here [2]
|
| [0] https://styleguide.ritza.co/writing-course/
|
| [1] https://github.com/sixhobbits/technical-writing
|
| [2] https://styleguide.ritza.co/improving-your-writing/how-
| do-I-...
| Tomte wrote:
| Technical writing benefits from Practical Style (the reader's
| time is important, the reader wants to get a job done, easy
| parsing of sentences is important), so I'd recommend one of the
| two best books about writing in English:
|
| Joseph M. Williams, Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace.
|
| An old edition is fine. There are many editions with slightly
| differing titles (Toward Clarity and Grace, The Basics of Clarity
| and Grace), all of them are fine. Get the cheapest or fastest to
| deliver or whatever. Don't think about which one to get.
|
| The other great book about writing is Thomas&Turner's Clear and
| Simple as the Truth. It teaches Classical Style, which is less
| fitting to technical documentation, as the authors discuss
| themselves.
| maxekman wrote:
| Thanks for the literature tips, will definitely get one of the
| books right away. Will also learn more about Practical Style as
| I haven't heard about that.
| supersrdjan wrote:
| I came in to write exactly what you wrote. +1
| O__________O wrote:
| To be a good technical writer, you must understand who needs what
| and why, then figure out how to solve that the best way based on
| the context.
|
| Anyone looking for a good system of producing documentation
| should check out:
|
| https://documentation.divio.com/
|
| Which has a 30-min presentation:
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t4vKPhjcMZg
|
| Prior HN posts on the system are here:
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fdocumentation.divio....
| [deleted]
| rozenmd wrote:
| Write a new technical article each week on your blog. Get
| feedback (by sharing them). You'll improve over time.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| My advice: read lots of old, old technical documentation. For
| some reason, technical writing became much worse after 1990 or
| so. Probably something to do with the commoditization of tech.
| remoquete wrote:
| Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30365800
| BurningFrog wrote:
| One weakness people "on the spectrum" have is "theory of mind",
| which is the ability to understand that other people have
| different experiences, different knowledge, and even different
| opinions.
|
| In writing, this manifests as not attempting to bring the reader
| up to speed with underlying concepts. Since they are "known".
| This can result in texts that only work as a reminder for those
| who already know the field.
|
| I don't have a great way to "fix" that problem, but the first
| step is to at least be aware of it!
| dan-robertson wrote:
| What do you do to practice or seek feedback?
| ayewo wrote:
| Lots of solid advice already.
|
| If you are up for it, you could try moonlighting as a writer for
| _technical_ content marketing agencies. You get paid on the side,
| while also subjecting your writing to editorial criticism until
| it is ready for publication.
|
| https://draft.dev/write
|
| https://contentlab.io/writeforus/
| maxekman wrote:
| Cool tip! However I don't think I would have the motivation to
| do a good job in that (and sadly no time for it).
| ayewo wrote:
| No worries! Just threw it out there in case it might fit in
| with your goals.
| quercusa wrote:
| If you have an opportunity to do any kind of standards (ANSI,
| ISO, IETF, etc.) development work, take it! Your colleagues there
| will help you find every possible ambiguity and infelicity and
| you may never use the passive voice again.
| fnord123 wrote:
| Strunk and White.
|
| To some it will be too obvious. But English speakers (especially
| English as a second language people) outside the US have often
| never heard of it.
| ghaff wrote:
| Unfortunately, this is now apparently behind a sign-up wall but
| for a counterpoint:
|
| https://www.chronicle.com/article/50-years-of-stupid-grammar...
|
| "The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in
| which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice
| ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its
| enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp of
| English grammar; it has significantly degraded it."
|
| Probably a more brutal takedown than deserved but I'm not at
| all sure it's wrong.
| fnord123 wrote:
| The article is needlessly contrarian and negative. The book
| is useful to get students or anyone playing a trade writing
| from 3/10 to a 7/10. A lot of critics lose sight of this.
|
| It's a great book to use for guidelines to start with when
| building out your own style. If youre an editor and want to
| use it to compell others to write with a style, it's less
| useful.
| carapace wrote:
| That criticism would hold more water if it were more well
| written.
| itronitron wrote:
| I'll also add the course from The Great Courses - 'Building
| Great Sentences: Exploring the Writer's Craft' by Brooks
| Landon.
|
| Just the audio version is sufficient, especially if you can
| listen to it on a daily commute. They give specific advice on
| how to simplify sentences that have multiple dependent clauses
| into a more compact form, which can be particularly useful for
| technical writing.
| memling wrote:
| Read a lot. Best tech writing regardless of domain right now is
| supreme court opinions. Reasonably accessible, written to be
| read, usually lucid. Read your own work after a layoff. Read out
| loud. Write to be read out loud.
| inphovore wrote:
| Find good examples of well written documentation and emulate
| those.
|
| The most effective way to improve your writing is through
| improving your reading.
|
| I'm a literary nerd as well as a technologist, and will tell you
| it's easy to spot an English Lit graduate by their universally
| good documentation skills. Not because they use fancy words, or
| exotic expressions, because they use simple deadpan and well
| measured (never crowded) sentences. These tend to always write as
| though they're explaining to an intelligent child (with a
| pleasant unassuming and direct simplicity.)
| Fricken wrote:
| Some are suggesting more reading, and others are suggesting
| more writing. I propose that it is best to do both, and
| maintain active feedback loops between the two.
| maxekman wrote:
| Good suggestion! Do you have any technical docs that stand out
| as extra good in your opinion?
| taubek wrote:
| Stripe is very often mentioned as an example of great docs -
| https://stripe.com/docs
| maxekman wrote:
| Thanks! Will definitely check that out. I know I have
| stumbled in there before, but not having used the service I
| have not really looked around too much.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| K&R, or anything else Brian Kernighan.
| maxekman wrote:
| I had to look up what K&R was but makes sense after some
| searching. That book is probably worthwhile for lots of
| other reasons, even if I program in Go for most tasks.
| Thanks for the pointer!
| inphovore wrote:
| I remember the Ansible docs as pretty good.
|
| I'm sure you have read those great todo articles on medium or
| log rocket or whatever.
|
| The problem with citing good professional documentation is
| that this is usually or inevitably taken on by a team, so
| docs are really a standard of a good editor.
|
| The problem with stuff in the wild is it can be too bloggy or
| conversational.
|
| What you need is awareness and purpose. Stop reading junk as
| soon as you identify it (skim junk for take always ;).
|
| Cherish and reread somethings that "speak to you."
|
| Ironically, the best technical documentation is dry and to
| the point (without sounding as though generated from already
| inadequate code comments [glare].)
|
| Edit out sarcasm, sentiments, and unnecessary references or
| language.
|
| Explain what is happening, show an example and stop. You'll
| do fine!
|
| Do read one of those boring grammar/punctuation books. Just
| being aware of good sentence form will make you a better
| writer.
|
| I did all this stuff over a decade ago, so I don't have a
| link off hand.
| marcpaq wrote:
| Tech writer here.
|
| The absolute, invariable first rule in tech writing is to know
| your audience.
|
| Understand not just their technical problems but take the time to
| empathize with why they have these problems in the first place.
|
| Tech writing isn't about documenting, it's about finding the best
| way to explain something to people so they can solve their
| problems.
|
| Oh, and use an editor (the human kind, not the digital kind.)
| pieno wrote:
| > The absolute, invariable first rule in tech writing is to
| know your audience.
|
| While that's definitely true for tech writing generally, I feel
| it's usually not the best advice for someone wanting to improve
| their technical writing.
|
| Tech writing is first and for all "writing". I feel that's
| where a lot of people are struggling already: they may know
| vocabulary and grammar, but they have difficulties to write a
| well structured text. Even a single paragraph consisting of two
| or three sentences can be very hard for many people to actually
| think about. They may have been focusing on "shortcut" rules
| such as "maximum X words per sentence" or "maximum Y sentences
| per paragraph". But those are more often than not a distraction
| to actually think about a logically structured text.
|
| It's important to have a narrative to guide the reader through
| the text, presenting new pieces of information in a logical
| sequence, and anticipating how a reader could misunderstand
| what you're trying to say. For fiction writers, coming up with
| a narrative feels natural (even if it still can be hard).
| However, non-fiction writers may not even realise that they
| need some kind of narrative.
|
| You do need to know your audience to anticipate how your reader
| could misunderstand your text, but I think it's best to start
| practising by writing for yourself or someone like yourself.
| Write something about a topic you know pretty well, but do not
| master perfectly. Then, read what you've written one or two
| weeks later, and see if it still makes sense to you. If some
| parts seem confusing, try improving them.
|
| You could do the same with texts written by someone else:
| whenever you think the text is confusing or unclear, try
| improving itself.
|
| Do not just quickly add a word or sentence that specifically
| addresses your confusion, but take a step back and try to
| understand what caused the confusion. Try to really think about
| the order in which information is presented, whether that
| information is explained clearly, and whether all information
| in your text is necessary to understand the point you're
| making.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> Oh, and use an editor (the human kind, not the digital
| kind.)_
|
| This is _so_ important (IMNSHO). It 's fairly obvious, that
| editors are becoming a "lost art."
|
| My mother was a scientific editor, and she was _brutal_ (she
| edited some of my work).
|
| It's really hard to find fiction books, that are less than 500
| pages.
|
| I read a story about Stephen King. Apparently, he _hates_ being
| edited (most writers don 't like it).
|
| When he was just starting out, he was forced into being edited.
| I remember reading _' Salem's Lot_, back in the 1970s. It was
| an awesome book (Relatively short, succinct, scary as hell),
| and made me suddenly become a Stephen King fan.
|
| As he got more and more famous, he started being able to bully
| his editors, to the point where his work is barely edited at
| all.
|
| And it shows.
|
| I really can't read him, anymore.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| > It's really hard to find fiction books, that are less than
| 500 pages.
|
| For SF & F this seems to be a deliberate choice, from what I
| understand. This is from an iterview with Ted Chiang:
|
| _TC: I think the reaction varies, because science fiction is
| a more commercial genre. There are a lot more people in
| science fiction whose goal is to make a living from writing
| fiction by publishing one or more novels a year. And people
| who enter science fiction generally receive more messaging
| about fiction writing as a sole source of income than, say,
| people entering mainstream fiction. The messaging there is
| different: get an MFA, teach; it's understood that your
| teaching position supports your career as a writer. For
| writers entering science fiction, that's not really a thing
| yet. We're maybe getting there, but the messaging they
| receive is mostly: Be very prolific._
|
| https://culture.org/an-interview-with-ted-chiang/
|
| >> As [Stephen King] got more and more famous, he started
| being able to bully his editors, to the point where his work
| is barely edited at all.
|
| Yeah, I kinda noticed that too. I picked up a book of his and
| couldn't finish it because it felt like every episode in the
| story was written so that it took maybe ten, maybe fifty more
| pages than it really needed to. Extreme padding.
|
| I think Liu Cixin also went through something similar. _The
| Dark Forest_ was lean and mean. The next two books were
| progressively fatter and more verbose and full of aimless
| meandering. Though maybe that was an attempt to complete a
| trilogy to capitalise on the first book, if I 'm more
| cynical.
| jacksnipe wrote:
| While I see where you're coming from re: The Three Body
| Problem Vs the rest of the series, the core ideas in the
| Dark Forest and Deaths End are so exciting that I can't
| help but feel the rest of the story is a justification for
| exploring them.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| Oops- I meant _The Three Body Problem_ was lean and mean
| Thanks!
| JJMcJ wrote:
| > extreme padding
|
| First drafts tend to be verbose. Poor editing contributes
| to that kind of prose slipping through into publication.
|
| As to huge page counts, mysteries are similar to science
| fiction as genres but I don't see a push to expand to huge
| sizes.
|
| All genres are places where earning a living is possible.
| Someone said if you have a popular mystery series, every
| public library will buy at least one hardback copy of each
| of your books.
|
| If you are big time popular, they might order 20 copies,
| like the last few Sue Grafton books.
|
| Similar for ebook and audio books.
| JJMcJ wrote:
| If you follow the publication of big name writers, there is a
| tendency for their later works to get longer and longer, and,
| as you say, harder to read.
|
| Examples include Robert Heinlein in Science Fiction, James
| Michener in general fiction, Herman Wouk in general fiction.
| For Wouk, his well known Caine Mutiny is a fairly long book,
| but it's tightly written. Later works not so much.
| eatonphil wrote:
| > It's really hard to find fiction books, that are less than
| 500 pages.
|
| Allow me to introduce you to the myriad Maigret novels by
| George Simenon. :) They are my favorite filler books when I
| want something good at only 150-200 pages.
| JJMcJ wrote:
| These days shorter fiction is almost always published as
| part of a collection, unless you are selling on line or
| self publishing in print.
| eatonphil wrote:
| Is this in response to the wrong comment? I'm giving an
| example of the opposite of what you're saying.
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| I can only read his short fiction with few exceptions. He got
| to the point where he would take 50 pages (exaggeration, but
| still...) to describe, I dunno, a room. Okay, so the room is
| important, but is it that important?
| klodolph wrote:
| I always like to point at Victor Hugo. In Les Miserables,
| apparently (I didn't count), more than a quarter of the text
| is essays which do not move the plot forward. The essay about
| Waterloo is the most egregious example.
| bombcar wrote:
| Apparently that was a bit of the style at the time (one of
| them delves into the Paris sewer system) to kind of "show
| off". Some other contemporary works are clearly written to
| be serialized.
| JJMcJ wrote:
| Once downloaded a copy of Hound of the Baskervilles,
| broken into chapters as separate files. Each chapter was
| almost exactly the same length, within a few hundred
| characters, showing that it had been serialized first and
| chapters were sized for publication.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I'm trying to remember if it was Dumas, but some French
| author was reputedly paid by the word, so all their
| dialogue is _incredibly_ drawn out ( "I have a question."
| "What is the question?" "It is, as you might expect from
| me, a simple question." "By all means, please, present me
| with the question, that I may resolve your puzzlement."
| ... etc.).
| solardev wrote:
| Too bad that wasn't in the musical. Can you imagine Russell
| Crowe belting an essay on Waterloo?
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > Apparently, he hates being edited (most writers don't like
| it).
|
| I've grown to love it. It was a long road. Once you start
| disciplined writing an editor becomes like a personal trainer
| who helps you be your best. Until I learned to write with
| more steel and less fire, ego ruled my writing. The familiar
| sins are;
|
| - loving the sound of your own (inner) voice
|
| - showing off what you know rather than considering what the
| reader might care to hear (and muddying waters so as to
| appear deep)
|
| - pretentious talk (circumlocutory linguistic gymnastics)
|
| A good editor gets to know your weaknesses and corrects them
| gently.
| [deleted]
| larsrc wrote:
| That's not just him, it seems to happen to a lot of authors
| when they get famous. They get more clout and can push back
| on the editors, or the editors become afraid to cut too much,
| and suddenly you have bricks where half the words could be
| removed.
| bombcar wrote:
| You can see it in action by looking at a boxed Harry Potter
| set.
| setgree wrote:
| > It's really hard to find fiction books, that are less than
| 500 pages.
|
| To play editor for a moment -- your sentence needs no comma,
| and it's easy to find fiction books with _fewer_ than 500
| pages ;)
|
| Was a clause omitted?
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Fair point.
|
| I look for books in a certain genre, though.
|
| I find myself retreating to classics that are over 30 years
| old, because the new stuff is so unreadable.
|
| I'll probably start _The Black Company_ (for like, the
| twentieth time), soon.
| djdhrbrh wrote:
| https://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/pep/ind
| e...
|
| The suggestion is to never separate a subject from a verb
| or a verb from its object
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Hey, thanks for that! Proper comma (and semicolon) usage
| is always a challenge for me.
|
| I decided to develop the habit of the "Oxford Comma," but
| I don't think I have it down, yet. It also seems to be
| "un-American." American English does not like commas.
| k__ wrote:
| Grammarly is still better than no editor.
| no_identd wrote:
| Not really:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20170816111301/http://serenity-s.
| ..
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20170619192710/http://www.sereni.
| ..
|
| Too bad Serenity Software appears AWOL.
| ghaff wrote:
| IMO not by much. I mean, it catches out and out errors which
| is something I guess. And it gives some _generally_
| applicable feedback about excessive use of passive voice,
| overly long sentences, etc. But for the most part it doesn 't
| really improve your writing in terms of structure, clarity,
| etc.
| tpetry wrote:
| I always get the feeling that grammarly adds to much
| commas. And so many of the sentence rewriting suggestions
| just provide glibberish.
| k__ wrote:
| Somehow it often removes commas for me.
| ducharmdev wrote:
| I think many people write off empathy as being about warm and
| fuzzy feelings, and don't realize that it's a very useful skill
| that can be improved with practice.
|
| The more effectively you can imagine perspectives other than
| your own, the more easily you can come up with creative
| solutions, communicate well, and overall just be a more
| pleasant person to be around.
| SKILNER wrote:
| Someone else mentioned Strunk and White's Elements of Style, but
| in the true spirit of that book let me just cut to the chase and
| say, "omit needless words."
|
| Our brains only have so much space in them so you only get to
| cram a small number of words into someone else's brain; make them
| the most productive words possible.
|
| When writing, it's harder to remove words than write them.
| maxekman wrote:
| A bit like code then, optimize for easy reading rather smarts
| when writing it.
| danrl wrote:
| To more impactful convey they information, keep not only the
| audience in mind, but also how their brains will process that
| information. Then tailor content to make it easy for the
| receiving entity (brain) to process the information and store it
| effectively.
|
| I found this guide helpful:
| https://www.knowledgeowl.com/home/three-tips-psychology-docu...
| sealeck wrote:
| - read your writing aloud (it _really_ helps to improve it) when
| you review it
|
| - just write and then edit - better to have written something
| (even if it's not great) and then make it better. Especially in
| writing perfect can be the enemy of good.
|
| - step away - sometimes it helps to review your writing after
| maybe 1 hour or a day or a few days
|
| - READ MORE - reading well written stuff really helps
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _just write and then edit - better to have written something
| (even if it 's not great) and then make it better._
|
| Related: Do not be precious about what you've written as you
| rewrite. "Kill your darlings", as the saying goes.
|
| https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-does-it-mean-to-ki...
| jacksnipe wrote:
| All good writing is about narrative. What a compelling narrative
| means is different for a technical document and a mystery novel,
| but narrative is the bedrock.
|
| So make sure that things are motivated, and try to not just tell
| the reader the facts, but take them on a journey such that they
| will wind up with the right facts AND the right mental model at
| the end of things.
| gnat wrote:
| Two things I recommend: the Google tech writing courses:
| https://developers.google.com/tech-writing
|
| And "Bugs in Writing", which I've been pressing into people's
| hands for twenty years now. https://www.amazon.com/BUGS-Writing-
| Revised-Guide-Debugging/...
| raybb wrote:
| Have you taken the Google tech writing course? Were there any
| big takeaways for you?
|
| About a year or so ago I read through a bunch of that course
| and it seemed like it would be okay for someone who is new to
| writing in a business setting. But generally the summary was
| said: be concise as possible while still getting the message
| across to the appropriate audience.
|
| Looking at it again, the "organizing large docs" is pretty
| good. https://developers.google.com/tech-writing/two/large-
| docs#pr...
|
| "Choose a heading that describes the task your reader is
| working on. Avoid headings that rely on unfamiliar terminology
| or tools."
| rg111 wrote:
| 15 hours ago, this book was 15 bucks, and now that I went back
| to the page, the book is 39 bucks with "Only 1 left in stock"
| message.
|
| Products on Amazon even get the Hug of Death(tm).
| dmitriid wrote:
| Start with lists.
|
| When writing about a concept, or a system, do something like
|
| ---
|
| This system consists of
|
| - A
|
| - B
|
| - C, (but see notes on C below)
|
| (and then do the same for C further down)
|
| ---
|
| Label each section with a header and have a ToC that has every
| header in it.
|
| All this will let you do two things:
|
| - cut down on bullshit, and be concise and precise.
|
| - see and quickly change the structure of your document
| tetha wrote:
| It's not strictly from the technical writing corner, but I've
| learned a lot from the book "The Craft of Scientific Writing" by
| Micheal Allay. It's more geared towards scientific papers, but
| I've found the style papers are structured to be a very useful
| starting point for design documents and runbooks. I tend to start
| with something like that, and adjust it according to the
| audience.
| GeneT45 wrote:
| I strongly commend "The Technique of Clear Writing" by Robert
| Gunning. I don't think it's in print anymore, but copies are
| still inexpensively available through Amazon and elsewhere.
| Grimm665 wrote:
| Lot's of examples mention techniques, I'll mention tools. Find an
| editor you like to write in, extend it with plugins that help
| your flow if it's the kind of app that allows it, and learn all
| the in's and out's to make writing as easy as possible.
|
| I don't have a strong background in technical writing, but often
| get compliments on my documentation and the secret is org-mode;
| it makes writing structured documents easy, and there are many
| tool for converting org-mode docs to any format needed, so it
| adapts to any audience.
| kashyapc wrote:
| Since you said you're willing to try "what it takes": I suggest
| to try contributing a couple of articles to LWN.net[1]. You'll
| gain valuable experience working with highly competent editors.
|
| Be prepared for several rounds of fine-grained heavy editing
| process. FWIW, I benefited greatly from my interaction with the
| LWN editors by contributing a handful of articles. Here's a
| somewhat recent example[2].
|
| [1] https://lwn.net/op/AuthorGuide.lwn
|
| [2] "A QEMU case study in grappling with software complexity" --
| https://lwn.net/Articles/872321/
| ghaff wrote:
| I'll also throw in a plug for opensource.com.
|
| Article-length (i.e. ~ 1K word) pieces for a publication where
| editors will actually take time and care to work with you--
| which is by _no_ means a given these days is definitely the
| path I would recommend. Note that this is different in a number
| of ways from technical documentation. At the same time, it 's
| also closer than something more literary or (for the most part)
| something more like reporting which has its own style (and
| other rules).
| sateesh wrote:
| I have a bit of an unusual suggestion. One thig that had helped
| me is reading "The Economist". Their style is succinct, doesn't
| make lot of assumptions about reader's prior knowledge. Many a
| times I have read articles in it about many of the areas which I
| am barely familiar with and come out better informed. Probably
| that's what one would strive for in technical documentation.
| ghaff wrote:
| Definitely one of the best-written publications out there. Not
| as "literary" as The New Yorker. But brings in a certain amount
| of cleverness/humor/storytelling that newspapers (by design)
| mostly lack outside of feature stories where some of those
| elements can be overdone.
| vnorilo wrote:
| Their style guide [1] is one of my references when trying to
| improve my own writing.
|
| While my professional writing has been mostly academic, I find
| the progression is similar to tech writing.
|
| First you learn to show your erudition and command of the
| ingroup speech.
|
| Then, if you have a genuine desire to communicate, you progress
| to simpler yet precise language, stop using the big words when
| not necessary (often, they are just signaling and gatekeeping)
| and develop empathy for and understanding of the audience.
|
| 1: https://cdn.static-
| economist.com/sites/default/files/store/S...
| mif wrote:
| https://archive.org/details/EconomistBooksTheEconomistStyleG.
| ..
| tl_donson wrote:
| https://imgur.com/a/rWEmPI9
|
| clearly mark twain took the orwell advice to heart.
| captainkrtek wrote:
| A few pointers from my own experience (usually in the context of
| design or proposals):
|
| - why does a document need to be written? Is it to be discussed,
| debated, just documentation? Let this drive what really needs to
| be written. Often I've seen design documents with lengthy
| sections on information that is already well agreed upon or
| commonly understood, just adds noise for the reader.
|
| - consider the audience. Engineers may read a document and have
| specific prior context that can be omitted, whereas a product
| manager may get lost in too much technical detail. Tailor your
| document to your audience, and use the appendix for extra details
| if someone wants to dig in further.
|
| - keep it brief. Focus on information required to get the
| necessary outcome and convey the information clearly. Starting
| with an outline of headers is helpful as well.
|
| - think of good writing you've come across. It was likely clear
| and succinct _enough_. In my own writing I used to include every
| last detail to make sure the reader was the most informed about
| how I reached some conclusion, but then realized too much info
| becomes counterproductive and doesn't focus the reader on what
| matters.
| ghaff wrote:
| >consider the audience.
|
| And I'd add to that: Be reasonably consistent. Don't be
| belaboring what a microprocessor is and what it does in one
| sentence. And then throwing around jargon like registers,
| branch prediction, and hyperhtreading in the next without any
| explanation.
|
| One thing I miss writing for the web is that footnotes don't
| work very well. When I was writing research notes, I really
| liked footnotes for--among other things--providing some
| parenthetical detail about technical terms and the like in a
| way that didn't break up the flow. Unfortunately, on the web,
| footnotes generally break up the flow _more_ than just adding
| the detail inline.
| gautamdivgi wrote:
| For more of a process on how to get docs cycle through a dev
| review - The oxide computer RFD process -
| https://oxide.computer/blog/rfd-1-requests-for-discussion. I
| tried to use something similar for my team but got a lot of eye
| rolls that docs would need source control. We use a wiki but it's
| messy and not a lot of review control. Writing the doc is one
| thing. Making sure it's effectively communicated, reviewed,
| versioned and published should also be a part of the
| documentation process.
|
| One pesky little detail is that documents take a lot of thought
| to write and this translates into a good bit of time to get a
| document out for review. If you have a "how fast are you closing
| your JIRA tickets" manager, it can be hard to justify and will
| come back to bite you (unfairly so, but such is the life of a sw.
| engineer).
| [deleted]
| eatonphil wrote:
| Write consistently and spend time rereading what you write
| before/after you publish. Read out loud. Any time you find a
| confusing or unclear sentence, rework it. Get rid of unnecessary
| words.
|
| I've been doing this for 1-3 blog posts per month for the last 4
| years and I think my writing is decent now.
|
| It didn't come naturally. I hated editing all my life until I
| took a course in college and realized I could actually write
| clearly if I just spent a little time reading and reworking what
| I wrote.
|
| The only directly related book I'd recommend is On Writing Well.
|
| I'd also suggest reading clear and simple authors like Hemingway
| (A Movable Feast), Antoine de Saint-Exupery (Wind, Sand and
| Stars), and Beryl Markham (West with the Night).
|
| But fundamentally: consistent practice, rereading, and editing.
| rawgabbit wrote:
| I found the Hemingway style of getting to the point in simple
| English is the best way to get my point across. There are several
| apps that will help you write like Hemingway.
|
| Get to the point. Usually in the first two paragraphs. The entire
| meat of a memo or chapter is on one page. The rest of the memo or
| chapter is supporting material with examples, clarifications,
| diagrams, and context showing how this idea relates to a
| different idea.
|
| In meetings, I usually present only the first page or one diagram
| that summarizes the entire memo. I usually tell people to read
| the whole thing if they want more details.
|
| I am also in the habit of sharing my drafts with a lot of people
| so they know what I am up to. By the time it's completed the
| audience has probably already seen it twice . This helps with
| buy-in. As I have already met with people who have concerns or
| objections.
| Gaessaki wrote:
| Lots of great advice here. One piece of advice I got from my
| publisher when authoring a technical book was to first break down
| what I was going write into headings and subheadings, and if
| possible, into sub-subheadings. Then review that to see if your
| flow is coherent and whether there are sections that are missing,
| or could be extracted into another text.
|
| Personally, my process after this is to express my thoughts in
| bullet points, followed by inserting any placeholders and
| captions for any graphics (e.g. charts or diagrams), and then
| finally I start rewriting my bullet points into proper sentences,
| expanding my examples, and adding any interstitial text necessary
| to make things flow.
|
| Also, I see some comments on keeping things short and to the
| point. In general, I agree with this, but depending on the
| medium, sometimes it doesn't hurt to inject a bit of personality
| into your writing. Technical writing can be dry at times, and
| this can deter engagement. Try to use concrete examples whenever
| possible or refer to other supporting texts.
| Gaessaki wrote:
| Wanted to add that relying on an editor is absolutely key. It
| doesn't necessarily have to be a professional, a friend or
| colleague with strong communication skills will do. Edit your
| own work mercilessly as well, but only after you've put your
| main thoughts down. After a night of intense drafting, put your
| text in a drawer and come back to it in a day or two.
| Brystephor wrote:
| > Also, I see some comments on keeping things short and to the
| point
|
| I think this is true. Another way of saying it might be to
| write things intentionally and make sure each sentence
| contributes to a goal. You can have humor and personality in
| the paper, but make sure you don't have filler or meaningless
| words that you're just writing off as personality.
|
| I love when a document is easy to read and is thorough.
|
| Side rant: I hate when people use an acronym in a document and
| never state what the acronym stands for. Take the extra 10
| seconds and type it out the first time you use it with the
| acronym version in parentheses directly after.
| Gaessaki wrote:
| I think you phrased it well. The distinction I wanted to make
| is that it's more about clarity of thought than absolute
| brevity.
| larsrc wrote:
| Lots of good advice already (except there are better sources for
| writing style advice than Strunk & White). Here's one I and my
| linguist wife like:
|
| Write on paper first.
|
| Paper is more immediate and has fewer distractions, fewer ways to
| go back and edit at once, and leaves a bit more time to think. It
| doesn't require looking at a screen, which you probably do enough
| of already.
|
| Sure, typing it up is an extra step, but it can be a good editing
| step. Having edited (to the best of my ability) some of my wife's
| writings, I have been able to correctly guess when she wrote
| directly into the computer simply by the writing being less
| coherent.
| maxekman wrote:
| Very true that we sit by our screens way too much. Any
| reasonable work away from it is probably for the best. On this
| note I would like to share a really good tip (but slightly out
| of topic) that I got in the comments on some HN post some time
| ago; don't use your phone or Internet until late morning, or at
| least after having really dug in to work for the day. This
| really helps to focus on the work at hand and avoid
| distractions.
| st00 wrote:
| Google has some classes on this, developed by their Tech Writers:
|
| https://developers.google.com/tech-writing
|
| Originally, the material was targeted at SWEs, trying to give
| them pragmatic ways of thinking about the advice you'll read
| elsewhere in this thread. I haven't kept up with it, so I don't
| know if that's still the focus.
| edding4500 wrote:
| Here's a (imho) pretty neat post on technical writing that was
| recently linked on HN:
|
| https://www.heinrichhartmann.com/posts/writing/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-25 23:02 UTC)