Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pHaestus
That article needed a lot more beef and supporting information in my opinion. You guys can do better. Not horrible but not enough explanation for some points and NO data to support "rules of thumb". I'm sorry I didnt get a chance to read this thread earlier; didn't realize an article for OCers was being formulated in here.
|
Agreed. Welcome to the wonderful world of technical writing. There are a few ways to approach tech writing. Yours (though generally quite accurate) is the "I sound like I know my stuff so I'm right" method. It'll work with people that are too stupid to think for themselves and haven't already been brain-washed with false impressions. Honestly I'm afraid there isn't much use in "teaching" such a group.
There's the over-the-top with theory and data approach. The only ones that will understand are those who already could figure it out, if they cared.
There's the slightly dumbed-down, full of analogies, spoon-fed-but-backed-up-with-real-science method. It doesn't get overly technical, can be understood by those with a brain who care to learn, and offers solid technical background and/or real life (and quality) data. I'm a tad biased toward this last approach as anyone who has read some of my stuff knows.
No matter the approach, resign yourself to one simple fact. Regardless of how right you are, how well you prove it, and how well you present it, someone will still argue that you are wrong. Such is life.
Personally I got a little burned out explaining the same concepts time and again at varied forums. Sure, lots of people took my words to heart and actually learned something, but I could only do it so long. A full time job and three kids kinda took the wind out of my writing sails.
I wish you best of luck in your endeavor for though your goals are noble your task is unending.