This statement refers to Schryer's article in which the students didn't have the literacy skills anticipated by the professors at the veterinary school. Students don't practice their writing skills as often as they should and this hurts them in the end without them realizing it. I didn't even realize the importance of writing skills in the medical field and after reading these articles I see that strong literacy skills are important in all fields. Mediocre won't always pass because if people cannot communicate with you effectively, they won't want to work with you.

Sometimes we need to understand how technology will affect technical communication for the improvement of our society and not just the current situation we are in. These technological improvements are improving the world as a whole.

We rely on technology too much to where if the internet stopped working, we would not be able to function for awhile. It would take us awhile to recover from the network failure.

WIll the teaching of the specific softwares help the majority of students with their goals? It could be beneficial to few, but it may not be to the majority.

Often, we don't realize how we switch tools and resources because technology is evolving so fast and not everyone will want to use the same software and it would take too much time to repeatedly go over different softwares.

This is similar to what we discussed in class. We mentioned that different platforms or genres of writing is still considered writing. Just because the way it was communicated is different doesn't mean it isn't writing.

Communicators and Professionals have developed due to the advancement of technological. The easiest, tedious work can now be accomplished by computers that way we don't have to worry about it.

The author is trying to promote growth in the field of technology by developing awareness of the changes. If you educate the people, they are more inclined to understand be content or even excited about change.

The way technology is viewed was how it fit into what was going on in that moment and no one seemed to be concerned about how far advanced technology could bring them. I think we still have these views because we are stuck on how things are supposed to be and change is hard to grasp.

Again, this is where rhetoric/dialectic process comes into play. Everyone in the same team should be able to go back and forth with their ideas and inputs in order to generate a consensus that allows the tech to reach a wide variety of audiences. What good does an amazingly written instruction manual do if nobody is actually reading it and putting it to use?

Technology is growing larger and changing more every day. Since technical writing first came out so much has changed, which most likely means that there is not just one way of doing things. It will take sometime before technical writing is concrete.

One main purpose of tech writing is using multimodal communication in order to reach a variety of potential audiences. This can be done using a dialectic process to make information more accessible without oversimplifying it. Perhaps stick to one genre in order to figure out what will work and then by testing and prototyping the tech in multiple scenarios, you can infer what audiences it reaches.

When I am searching for potential internships and job openings, one of the first requirements is "must have effective writing skills." A lot of students who chose a technical career have a difficult time honing their writing skills because they were taught to memorize information and simply regurgitate it on an exam. I understand employers are looking for candidates with a variety of technical skill sets, but let's not underestimate the value of a great writer.

I can relate to this because everyone's writing styles are different and not everyone on your team has the same prose and you do. This is where the dialectic/dialogic process comes into play where you go back and forth with your teammates, listening to every angle, in order to generate a consensus. Using persuasion to figure out which of the potential "solutions" or "resolutions" are the best and why? This can be difficult when timing constraints and issues are taken into consideration. But the goal in the end is to reach multiple potential audiences without oversimplifying the information.

I completely agree with Albers here. The future of technology is bright, but it also can be quite scary. Some fear that we are growing too dependent on technology. I would agree to an extent, I just don't like it when people (particularly elder generations) make technology out to be this villain. It has created jobs, brought people together in unimaginable ways, and made the world better. However, I fear relying too much on it will cripple us to where we cannot survive without it and the thought of that is really scary.

Albers quotes Hayhoe here, and I think this is a very good point to put in his argument. This definitely will ties into our class when we address our clients and cater to their needs.

I can relate this to the Schryer article "Records as Genre". Writing involves unique talent and creativity that does not always communicate information the most productive way possible. Writers can get caught up in crafting the perfect writing that they forget that it's meant to be utilitarian instead. This is a great example of genre's purpose in tech writing. By identifying what type of document it is (memo, essay, instructions manual, etc.), you are able to follow a set of appropriate guidelines and conventions. Following a set of guidelines or conventions when writing allows for your readers to easily identify what type of document it is and it's purpose is no longer hidden behind fancy prose.

I agree with Albers's point here. Technology, now matter how beautiful, will always be biased.

As this article is eleven years old, I feel like in this age, we are defining the relationships between technology, social aspects, and business needs via social media. As companies and people are able to use it to tell their stories.

Indeed we are, as the Internet is growing everyday, created greater and deeper access to new information, software, and tools to connect us with one another.

Tech writing has evolved immensely from generic instruction manuals to now utilizing interdisciplinary skills. It's not just about knowing how to read and write sophisticatedly or eloquently, but you also have to tune and hone your CIS skills as well. Relating this to rhetoric, the key to success here is learning all the sides to tech writing and keeping up to date with all the latest tools in tech in order to be simply good at it.

I think this relates back to what we discussed in class regarding how the old Nokia phones had user manuals that were as thick as phonebooks, and how no one would read these enormous works of boring text. Now, people look to the Internet to solve their problems, or even better, like to troubleshoot on the device they are attempting to get help for.

The medium is the avenue through which the modes flow through. I agree with this statement because we tend to look at technology for its face value but we never go deeper to learn about its components/tools. For example, we know how to use an iPhone but do we know much about iOS? Relating this to our discussion of rhetoric/dialetic process, it is important to know every component, tool, or side used to make up a technology in order to successfully use to its full potential.

I understand that technology is constantly developing and its difficult for teachers to keep up to date with the latest tools or softwares and become an enough of an expert themselves in order to accurately teach a class on it. But if jobs are demanding for college graduates to know how to use these tools in order to get the desired job position, than perhaps a class that particularly keeps up to date with tools and technology should be offered. The whole point of college and investing $1000's of dollars on education is to be well taught and prepared in the career that you have chosen.

I liked how Albers said that he wanted to find connections between points of communication and how the can be beneficial to one another. This is very important and I think Albers, quite suitably defines what technical communication is right here. It is about finding connections and patterns in writing.

A way to see the difference between tools and technology is that tools such as website developing softwares (including Dreamweaver and Adobe Photoshop) are used to put together the technology a.k.a. the website.

I find this passage interesting since it seems to to imply that some writers put themselves ahead of their audience. I would think that technical writing is at it's best when it's useful to the end user, not the one who crafted it. This brings me back to a central theme in the article which is that the role of technical communicators is changing. Writers can no longer crank out a manual and call it a day. The work is a living breathing thing. This type of communication is designed for multiple audiences and with advances in technology, usability testing is now a crucial part of this as well. The work is never quite done. The user needs to always be front and center in the minds of the technical writer when working on any project.

While explaining the effects of technology on the field of technical communication Albers details how the need to write for multiple audiences should not be lost as the field is attacked with more and more software.

He is correct, the end user could care less how the information is made, all they want to do is be able to use it as efficiently as possible when it is done. So even though we are changing how we make certain deliverables, the audience is still just as important. The product is a failure if the audience it is intended for doesn't want to or can't use it. Like we discussed in class, the more audiences we can appeal to the more effective our writing will be.

Tech writing has converted into multimodal technical communication. Modes of writing include: linguistic, gestural, visual, spatial, and aural. Digital media is all of these things at once!

This quote by Gregory Williams adds an interesting angle to how the roles are changing. One of the labels for technical writers that I've seen tossed around is that of Information Architect. Williams points out in the above quote that technical communicators need to transform into the problem solvers and designers that create the actual CMS's and databases that even Pullman and Gu discuss in "Rationalizing and Rhetoricizing Content Management". Even in "Records as Genre" by Catherine Schryer, the need for more effective problem solving skills in graduating students is behind the adoption of the POVMR system of record keeping. The ability to be apart of the problem solving process to me will ensure more active participation in future work. We as communicators are here to solve problems and the more ways we find to solve them, the better.

Technical communicators need to have a hand in the creation of these systems or be relegated to lesser roles as Williams suggests. We as the writers have an opportunity to shape our own destinies if we choose to.

This sentence right here already tells me I'm in for something good, as the writer acknowledges the ever growing changes of technical communication merging with technology.

NOTE: Since I highlighted the sentence before it, I was not able to include it in the annotation. This annotation should start with the word How and end in Publishing.

Albers established a very concrete difference between tools, styles, and the comprehension of technology itself.

In this part, I believe that Shirk is discussing how technology has integrated into society, and how we as a whole change dramatically as a result of incorporating this into our world. I like how she also points out how it has created new opportunities. One of the many upsides to technology is that it has created millions of new jobs that were not even imaginable 20 years ago.

As we have discussed in class, tech writing has definitely developed over the past couple of decades and is no longer what it used to be. What once was a field limited to writing instructions and manuscripts has now gone digital and has converted into multimodal communication. Through this, information has been made more user-friendly and accessible to many audiences. Tech writing is certainly no longer limited to just writing itself.

I found this passage to be interesting because like much of the article, this passage illustrates how technical communicators need to be more than just writers. The need to learn and even understand the language of technology is more important than ever.

This also hit home for me as I too am learning the language of technology. My wife will be the first tell you that I don't "do" computers very well. I'll admit during our lecture and lesson about basic html in regards to our Wordpress sites, I ran into a bit of a language barrier. So in reading this passage afterwards it all made total sense.

As noted in “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designed Social Futures” by the New London group, they go on to state that, “With new worklife comes a new language. A good deal of this change is the result of new technologies, such as the iconographic, text and screen based modes of interacting with automated machinery; “user-friendly” interfaces operate with more subtle levels of cultural embeddedness than interfaces based on abstract commands.”

After re-reading this passage what Albers is stating above fits right in. We the communicators have to stay current with the language of technical communication which means that we must stay current with technology. If a technical communicator is unfamiliar with the technology used by the teams they work with, they will be left behind. A worse case scenario would be that a writer that does speak the language is hired to take their place.

This brings up a question as well. How are the different modes of communication changing? Do they change? Like genre, do they evolve?

A word that pops up this article as well the article by Pullman and Gu, "Rationalizing and Rhetoricizing Content Management", is content manager. Technical writers are not just writing the content but in today's job market they are also managing the content which means a closer relationship with new and different technology. Once the content is on the web, it does not go away and must be monitored and maintained.

The business side will always be looking a for new technology to find a way to streamline the business and make more money. This means that technical communicators will be apart of this process whether crafting communication for internal use or the users the technology may be intended to help.

While most of this article is explaining how the roles of technical writers are changing, this passage explains how there will also be job security in the future. Like we discussed in class today, if our boss wants an app, we would be told to make the app happen. In this case, a business is buying software, but they are only concerning themselves with the surface level tech requirements. It falls upon the technical communicators to facilitate the integration of that software into the existing systems of that business, which includes integrating humans into the new system as well. After reading "Rationalizing and Rhetoricizing Content Management" by Pullman and Gu,sometimes these failures to foresee the integration doom the roll out of the new tech/software over all.

As Albers concludes the article he makes sure to add one more gem. Technology does not exist alone. Software is built on other software and even code is built on existing code. There is a source. None of these systems exist in a vacuum. While we may be expected to help with the roll out of a new software, we will also be on the front lines trying to figure out how the new software will integrate with the current software. Technology is influenced by other other technology. The more we familiarize our selves with technology the easier it will be for us to keep up.

This quote explains why the title "technical writer" is morphing in to "content manager" and "information architect". Albers mentions that "writing is only one element of providing information". I think given our readings and discussion of mode this is true. Trying to convey complex ideas in just one mode is a recipe for failure. While we need to find ways of conveying information in as many modes as we can we also need to be aware of how new technologies can help us in this problem as well. While we can add different modes of communication, there could also be an app based software for example, that packages these modes in way that a 10 year old understands better than if we use a written manual.

This passage for me, brings to light how the study of technical writing is lacking. While many in the academic world seem to focus on the state of technical writing right now, Albers wants to focus more on "what might be". I think by creating a discourse that is grounded in the future of technical communication we can all become more proactive as the industry continues to evolve.

When speaking about technology, the idea of "what might be" is a powerful one. New technology is created to solve a problem. That means technology can be created to solve existing problems, but also to solve problems that may not exist yet. By at least following the trends of where the next major developments in technology will come from, technical communication will always have a place in the modern business world.

The need to understand where the industry is going, not where it is currently is the most important aspect of this article.

This to me, is one of the central points of not only this article but "Rationalizing and Rhetoricizing Content Management" by Pullman and Gu. We as technical communicators have to take it upon ourselves to evolve with the industry. Nothing is lost through more education, except ignorance. Sitting and waiting for the someone to tell us what we need to know to stay relevant is not going to happen because someone else already knows and they just took your job. In the previous paragraph, my favorite part of the article is Alber's definition of post-mortem planning, "...wondering how the company could outsource documentation to an overseas company and lay off writers who had produced perfectly written, unread manuals". To me this so perfectly lays out what happens when communicators become reactionary in regard to technology and not proactive.

Of course changing how technical communication is taught will be helpful as well. Instead of client facing projects that simulate problem solving in the real world, we could be learning how to write a Nokia cell phone manual like Dr. Wharton mentioned today in class...

Here Albers is quoting L. Carter from "The Implications Single Sourcing for Writers and Writing", who is explaining how technology has been integrated into the writing process of technical communicators. This is interesting since as I read his quote, I was able to recall my first time using MS Word in 1995 on my mother's laptop. To see how much has been added to the software since then is to see what a writer is now expected to understand. We are expected to already understand layouts and fonts as we transform into "information architects". The new requirements for technical writers will not be a mastery of MS Word, but of FrameMaker and other similar software. The more software changes and evolves the more we are expected to already be proficient in said software. As Albers mentions earlier, if we don't keep up we will find ourselves relegated to the sidelines.

Because we live in a technological age, the job descriptions and how technical communicators do their job HAS to grow with the advancing technology. It's possible that what we talk about in class this semester about what technical communication is won't be the same definition our kids will learn. The idea of technical communications relies heavily on what technology is available. As that grows, so will the job descriptions. The technical communicators of today are demanded to know so much more than those who preceded them. A job in technical communication interests me a lot and the idea of it always changing and growing makes me excited to hopefully pursue it.

This is very much an simplified definition of technical communication. Collaborations, technologies, and all other variables take a deeper look in the "how" aspect of technical communication. But at the basis of it, this is technical communication and how it differs from all other forms of writing.

What about the field of technical writing is confining? Is it the fact that it expands much more slowly compared to other fields or is it that the technical communicators are lacking the knowledge to do so to help its expansion.

A balance between "jack of all trades" and "master" is required for technical communicators. But also it helps if you are able to utilize the critical thinking referenced in earlier. Being able to learn new information and then "regurgitate" and utilize it is a valuable tool that you can use to learn the different technological aspects.

(http://desktoppub.about.com/od/software/f/software_list.htm)

Here is an explanation of what exactly desktop publishing is.

This point is so vital to understanding the complexities of technical communcation, I think. The act of writing and learning to write effectively really never changes. The amount of context given, what the audience needs and/or wants, the process in which a product is made is the real complexity of technical communication in my opinion. Having an arsenal of skills to know that one audience may need a tweet while the other needs a brochure and then how to create good effective versions of those is valuable. Understanding your personal writing process is the start to all of this and also writing on different mediums and seeing how that effects your process.

One of my annotations failed to show on my stream, so I am reposting it here... https://hyp.is/4gw0nnOhEeaTMCN5eC6xTA/courses.christopherylam.com/5191/readings/albers_2005.pdf

This quotation seems to have no faith in the future of technical communication. Through the years technical communication has evolved and will continue to do so throughout the years to come as technology advances and writers enhance their tech com skill sets.

I think that a lot of people would find this surprising. How can someone who isn't a expert on a certain subject know how to write about that subject? Well, the answer is critical thinking! The ability to comprehend, analyze, and then synsthesize information is such a valuable tool in learning new information and also being able to write about something you aren't necessarily an "expert" on. Rhetors and technical communicators should be able to do this with any information given to them.

The Summit in Technical Communication is a conference for all technical writers to join in DC in the month of may to discuss, unveil, and demonstrate new products and services in the world of Technical Communication. (http://summit.stc.org/)

This brings me to think of the user manuals in the electronics and other household items the majority of us own in this day in age. It seems as the time goes on less and less individuals are actually paying attention to the written text provided although the writers spend a large amount of time perfecting their work. It makes me think why someone would want to become a credible writer but yet not have their work read as often.

This really proves the argument of the article; technical communication is evolving faster than anyone expected and to be effective, one must stay on top of the ever-growing world of technology as well as have the ability to write for it. Complacency doesn't work here.

Throughout time I believe that these two words "tools" and "technology" have become interchangeable much like synonyms. Technology is a tool especially for tech writers, of course.

What are these fundamental methods being used?

A teacher in high school always told us that the number one complaint companies had about new hires was their ability to write effectively was very very low. The knowledge to know how to write effectively plus the knowledge of technologies and how to write with them is the ticket to being a great and valuable employee.

Technical communication isn't just for English majors; it's interdisciplinary!

The idea of technical communication as a collaborative effort is another thing that is new not only to technical communication, but the profession of writing in general. We don't see many instances of cowriting, but in technical communication, it is almost essential. Going through drafts and ideas and different suggestions and input only makes the product stronger. Collaboration is an important part of being an effective technical communicator.

When writing for academia, especially in the higher levels, we are told to be eloquent and "perfect" and sound dignified, but when it comes to technical communication, efficiency and concision is key. The word choice and sounded lofty so you can make a word or page count isn't the most important thing: the audience is. Getting the point across is. Audience and task are the central ideas of technical communication, which makes it hard because we have to relearn how to write. That's one of the reasons tech writers are in such high demand; the ability to write concisely and efficiently is not a small task.

This is where a discussion of genre and rhetorical problem solving can be used. Based on the rhetorical situation, a effective technical communicator must consider all things in order to provide the most compelling, engaging, and appropriate response/argument/product. Which kind of technology would be best is an important factor in technical communication in this age.

As my classmate says, technical communication is ever-growing and ever-changing. What "technical writing" was 20, even 10 years ago isn't necessarily all that it is now. Technology is growing and evolving, and so does our needs of technical writing. Another thing to note is the change from "technical writing" to "technical communication". Now, it seems that it is more about a dialogue than rules and/or instructions

Technology is loaded with tons of information. It is needed a lot, and it will keep improving. You can almost find anything with the use of technology. It's used everyday by everybody in the world. I don't think anyone can live without it except maybe old people who are still learning and adjusting to it. It may become a problem or may not with the next generation. It will all depend on how they use it or what they use it for.

teamwork makes the dream work. Having worked with a partner before, not always easy

This is what they mean when they say that no technology is neutral. Technology is very biased to the people who use it.

Technology is dependent on other technological information. It is never independent. For example, you can get an iPhone that is bigger in size now which is called the iPhone 6 plus. It was probably influenced by Samsung since they have the Samsung Galaxy Note. I am pretty sure that the creators of the iPhone 6 plus wanted people to know that the iPhone's screen can also be very big just like the Samsung's.

Writing and rhetorical issues are very important in the course of technical writing.

These are the different types of planning. I think that strategic planning is the most important because; you need to first figure out how technologies blend into each other, and what effect they will have when you use them. The rest of the planning types all depend on the results of strategic planning.

What do they mean when they say "empirical research?"

https://msu.edu/~bhatta30/wra/exams/Article.pdf

This link provides more roles or jobs that come out of technical communication.

But, it has already happened. Technology keeps changing and improving, and we as people don't get much opinion on it. We as people don't get much say in what we want to happen to technology. Technology develops and improves when we least expect it. I believe that people will not blame technology, but rather themselves. They are going to blame themselves for not catching up to the latest technology and for being too old-fashioned.

It is easy to retrieve something, but it is also easy to lose that same thing if you don't focus on the goal. If you want something really badly you must be able to focus on it without thinking about anything else. But, if you lose your goal it is okay too because; you can always get right back up and try again and again until you reach it. You must persevere and remember that if you can't put your own effort in what you want to do, you can easily lose the purpose of what you wanted in the first place.

I would probably agree with this comparison if it was back in the days where technology wasn't as efficient as now. But, now that since everyone in the world uses and relies a lot on technology this comparison between writers with technology and missing the train does not match up.

This is an example of a tool and technology. Technology is something that builds a website up to what it is made of while, a tool is the website as whole.

This section reflects upon the development of technical communication; the elements and skills set that comprise the field have increased over time. The job market has started to reflect this change. Generally, we observe higher instances of interdisciplinary elements in the field.

The purpose of this article is to examine the dynamic field of technical communication and how the demands of the current audience shifts over time. Thus, the technical writer must pay attention to how the modes of rhetoric affect the audience's response. The article proposes a call to action for research to better understand this connection.

This section is a call to action to address the growing field of technical communication and how people can examine rhetoric in order to better fit the demands of modern communication.

Contrary to this statement, we advise younger generations to adopt this attitude for a better chance at success in getting hired.

I expected this document to be more of an expository document, but this persuasive language says otherwise (Call to Action).

This relates to one of my earlier annotations. Technical communication has evolved to include a more social aspect.

This is a very basic example of how seemingly minor differences in modes can make the difference between widespread use or becoming obsolete. Rhetoric should always be created with the audience in mind.

This statement defines the primary intended audience, hence the technical jargon. It's heavily implied that the audience is familiar with the field.

I feel like Figure 1 is overly generic to display the "wide range of technologies" because I feel it could have included a category along the lines of an "interactive/response" category that relates to sensory and audience response. This is sort of an intersectionality that has a foot in design and another in human factors.

This image shows the relationship between audience and technical writer and how the connection has gotten more important in recent years. It's difficult to capture this in Figure 1, despite the wide scopes of the available categories.

In reference to Figure 1, this quote further propels my argument that the diagram is too simiplistic. The field is constantly evolving and "cross-discipline;" there are far too many facets and multi-disciplinary interactions that the graphic fails to capture. Right now, I feel like this image needs to be closer to a spider web-like appearance than a simple x shape. I agree that it is difficult to address.

What is Information Architecture?

This statement demonstrates one of the prevalent problems in defining technical communication's scope. Because the field is dynamic, people constantly have to redefine the "norms."

We acknowledge that technical writing is a dynamic concept; thus, its definition changes as it evolves and encompasses new modes of communication.

I assume that this is Albers's primary focus. He intends to examine the various elements of the field for the purpose of examining the scope of how we define technical writing.

Evolution into content strategists and mangers.