OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [dita] DITA for Technical Content

We could really have some fun by keying off the word "specialized" as mentioned in the bit quoted by Bob here.

But I jest. I have liked the name DITA for Technical Communication (vernacularly "DITA for Tech Comm") from the get-go.


On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Bob Thomas <bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com> wrote:
Here is how the Society for Technical Communication definesÂtechnical communication:

Technical communication is a broad field and includes any form of communication that exhibits one or more of the following characteristics:
  • Communicating about technical or specialized topics, such as computer applications, medical procedures, or environmental regulations.
  • Communicating by using technology, such as web pages, help files, or social media sites.
  • Providing instructions about how to do something, regardless of how technical the task is or even if [a]Âtechnology is used to create or distribute that communication.
That definition is sufficiently broad to cover everything included in the DITA 1.3 Technical Content package. If we are to provide what was in that package as a single separate work product, then I don't believe there is a better name for it than "Technical communication."

Partitioning the technical content package is an interesting idea that Chris Nitche has begun discussing in a separate message to the list. But, even if the TC were to accept Chris's suggestion, the general-purpose partition would still need to be called "Technical communication."

Best regards,
Bob Thomas

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@jeppesen.com> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 3, 2018, at 9:10 AM, Alan Houser <arh@groupwellesley.com> wrote:

I could support the singular form ("DITA for Technical Communication").

I believe the singular form is appropriate and defensible. Here "communication" is "information communicated : information transmitted" (source: Merriam-Webster), not individual instances of communication.


On 7/3/18 10:48 AM, Bob Thomas wrote:
I am not convinced that we need to rename DITA for Technical Content. But, if so, I would rather not get too specific. Perhaps a minor shift in the name might be better such as "DITA for Technical Communications."

Best regards,

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Bill Burns <bburns@healthwise.org> wrote:

Kris reminded me of the action item concerning a new name for DITA for Technical Content. As I look through the various domains, it seems a n odd mix, but it leans heavily toward procedural and programming semantics. So I'd like to recommend something that falls in those lines: DITA Procedure and Programming Specialization.


Bill Burns
Content Architect | Healthwise
bburns@healthwise.org<mailto:bburns@healthwise.org> | www.healthwise.org<http://www.healthwise.org/>
208.331.6917 (office)Â |Â 208.345.1897 (fax)

Healthwise helps people make better health decisions.


Bob Thomas
+1 720 201 8260
Skype: bob.thomas.colorado
Instant messaging: Gmail chat (bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com) or Skype
Time zone: Mountain (GMT-7)

Alan Houser
Group Wellesley, Inc.
Consultant and Trainer, Technical Publishing
arh on Twitter

Bob Thomas
+1 720 201 8260
Skype: bob.thomas.colorado
Instant messaging: Gmail chat (bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com) or Skype
Time zone: Mountain (GMT-7)

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]