LitWiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-12-01T02:13:29Z

Mroma98: /* References question */

==Layout and Lead==
Just to get this thing going, I have created the article, developed a rudimentary layout, and added a lead written by ChatGTP. '''All of this may be kept or changed'''. I would certainly revise or rewrite the lead. Questions, ideas, discussion, and comments about the project should be posted here. I'm looking forward to seeing what you all come up with this semester. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 09:38, 3 October 2023 (EDT)
:If no one else is going to address the lead being written by ChatGPT, I'm going to go ahead and jump in and make revisions.--[[User:Valerie Emerick|Valerie Emerick]] ([[User talk:Valerie Emerick|talk]]) 07:15, 28 November 2023 (EST)
::The revised introduction looks great, Valerie! The only thing that I would suggest potentially changing is in the last sentence. I believe "our" or any first or second person pronouns is not aligned with Wikipedia's/Litwiki's neutral point of view. I could be wrong, though. Other than that, I love the new intro! --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 21:07, 30 November 2023 (EST)

==Citation question==
I am citing a later edition of a source that is cited elsewhere on the page. (Markel, Mike, and Selber, Stuart. (2021). Technical Communication (13th ed). This version has a second author. Should these entries be combined somehow?
:{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} Yes. If you’re using the updated version, update the earlier source. Great question, but don’t forget to sign your talk posts. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 14:35, 2 November 2023 (EDT)

::{{Reply to|Admin}}Thank you. I have linked the first citation in the article (paragraph 1) to my Markel use under "Rhetorical Strategies." {{Reply to|mroma98}} and {{Reply to|RDrummond}}, in looking at the article history, it seems one of you may have added the Markel references under Ethical Considerations. I did not update those references yet because the oldest copyright date on my source is 2012, and I was also unsure of the page numbers. If you review the citation I added, and it is appropriate to reference, the shortened reference is <ref name="Markel">. Thanks. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 18:23, 13 November 2023 (EST)
:::{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} Thank you, Beth. I contributed to the Ethical Considerations section. My Markel source was from 2009, but the same information appears in later editions, so the 2012 reference should work, too. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 16:26, 25 November 2023 (EST)
::::{{Reply to|mroma98}}Thanks for replying. I found your information in the newer version and moved your citations so we can all use the same Markel source.--[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 17:33, 30 November 2023 (EST)
:::::{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} Thank you for that, Beth. Looks great! It definitely flows better and more sensibly to have the same edition from Mr. Markel throughout the article. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 21:10, 30 November 2023 (EST)

==Shortened Footnotes==
I added the template to the project. All you need to do is add the code for your reference under Bibliography and then the SFN code under citations. I made a quick, visual [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QGEr_RhDMKZvPqvncmDR9eoHRmOLeFkXpzp9nzFb-Sg/edit?usp=sharing step-by-step] that show you how to pull the [https://grlucas.net/grl/April%2015,%202019 template] and paste the code.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 14:11, 11 November 2023 (EST)
:Nice work! Thanks [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 09:28, 13 November 2023 (EST)

I just wanted to let everyone know that I worked on cleaning up the citations and making them all look like shortened footnotes per Dr. Lucas's direction. If there was a citation that looked like it belonged in the bibliography, I added it there. Each one of the citations links to the bibliography.--[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 00:27, 20 November 2023
:{{reply to|Natecole54}} Nice work! I was slowly working my way through the citations to convert them to SNF format, and I am glad to see that they are all done.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 08:26, 20 November 2023 (EST)
::{{reply to|Natecole54}}{{reply to|Debbiewolfe}}Thanks to both of you for taking this on! --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 11:02, 20 November 2023 (EST)
:{{reply to|Debbiewolfe}}{{reply to|Beth Kennedy}}You're welcome. I will monitor this section and make sure any new additions get formatted correctly.

== References question ==

Should References be the heading, followed by Bibliography as a subheading? Would this only apply if we are using Notes, Citations, and a Bibliography?--[[User:CEToledo|CEToledo]] ([[User talk:CEToledo|talk]]) 19:14, 4 November 2023 (EDT)
: {{Reply to|CEToledo}} You can do whatever seems logical for this. Check out [[w:The Man Who Studied Yoga|The Man Who Studied Yoga]] to see a way to approach a references section. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 07:27, 6 November 2023 (EST)

--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 12:50, 6 November 2023 (EST)== Shortened footnote code ==
I am having trouble understanding where the placement of the works cited and the shortened footnote code should be. I sent an inquiry email to Dr. Lucas. [[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 14:41, 5 November 2023 (EST)
:{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} I would put references at the bottom, in a bibliography section. Then you can use the shortened footnotes in the body. This is an easier approach for everyone editing, as they can easily consult the bibliography to see if a reference has been used and entered. —07:30, 6 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} and {{Reply to|CEToledo}} It seems we have two forms of citation happening now: the original one and the revised format that Debbie created. (Thanks Debbie and thanks for the tutorial (above), very helpful!). I think the bibliography with citations using shortened footnotes is a good approach, and my vote would be to transition to this. But it would be good to have consensus. Is everyone ok with this approach? --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 19:07, 13 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to |Beth Kennedy}} I vote SFN form. --[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 05:04, 14 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to |Beth Kennedy}} My vote is for the bibliography with citations using shortened footnotes. I think that will present a clean and readable format, since we are referencing similar marterial. --[[User:Kamyers|Kamyers]] ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 15:06, 14 November 2023 (EST)

Do I need to have the citation section? I see that my shortened footnotes are displaying in the reference section.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 15:48, 6 November 2023 (EST)

For the User Experience section, I reference citation 23. Do I need to add the citation to each entry there since they all come from the same source or will one citation work?--[[User:Elaine Streeter|Elaine Streeter]] ([[User talk:Elaine Streeter|talk]]) 19:06, 16 November 2023 (EST)

I'm struggling with my references and citations. It currently displays an error message. I updated the section "user guides" and tried to enter in my template and this is the error message I received. What am I doing wrong? --[[User:APitts]]
:::{{Reply to|APitts}}The shortened footnotes just don't need to be enclosed with the "ref" parameters. I removed them, and it's good to go. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 12:47, 22 November 2023 (EST)

Just wanted to let everyone know to check to see if the reference you're using is already listed in the bibliography section. If it is, then just add the shortened footnote in the content. If it's not, then add the reference in the bibliography as well as the sfn in the content. Adding duplicate references in the bibliography cause errors to happen in the citations.--[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 15:18, 27 November 2023 (EST)
:Thank you for taking on that task, Nate! It appears to have turned out nicely. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 21:13, 30 November 2023 (EST)

== Paragraph Blocks ==

I can't believe how well and quickly this is coming along. At any rate, on to my dispute...are we adhering to any particular standard in terms of the size of paragraph blocks? Too long and it reduces the likelihood of it being read, too brief (a single sentence) and the topic/subtopic of the contribution seems too unnecessary to even mention. -- [[User:CBrown]]

:I separated the Digital Document and User Experience sections. I think paragraph blocks should have around three to four sentences max. More than that, we can create a new subheading.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 06:41, 8 November 2023 (EST)

::The Ethical Considerations section seems to run together. Can it be separated into smaller sections with the primary categories as headings: "Employer," "Public," and "Environment?" --[[User:APitts]]

:::@APitts I agree that it would work better to separate into smaller sections. It would make them appear neater and more organized. -- [[User: HRoney]]

::::Can we agree then that there are no more additions to the "Ethical Considerations" section? [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 09:50, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:::::Edits have been made to separate the Ethical Considerations portion into categories. Can someone look over my work or make any edits as you see fit? -- [[User: APitts]]

:::::{{Reply to |APitts}} I looked over your work and it looks good to me! There were a couple of grammatical errors that I edited. -- [[User: HRoney]]

::::::{{Reply to |CBrown}} I agree that a single sentence is too brief for a topic/subtopic but I don't think that means all sections like that are "too unnecessary to even mention". I think that for single sentences we need to review that area to determine if we need to add further details. --[[User:TBara]]([[User talk:TBara|talk]]) 13:53, 14 November 2023 (EST)

:::::::{{Reply to |TBara}} I am fairly certain that is the way the word "seem" works. -- [[User:CBrown]]

Added indents to keep the section readable, per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Indentation wikipedia indentation] philosophy. [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 10:48, 14 November 2023 (EST)

== Topics vs. Subtopics ==

Why are future trends and challenges separate subtopics under the future trends and challenges topic? Should there not be an overview of future trends and challenges followed by subtopics of examples of future trends and challenges, e.g. artificial intelligence. -- [[User:CBrown]]

:I am in favor of this idea/change if others agree. --[[User:Elaine Streeter|Elaine Streeter]] ([[User talk:Elaine Streeter|talk]]) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|CBrown}} The problem here is that the heading Future Trends and Challenges has room for interpretation. I think the section should just be titled Future Trends. I also think an overview of future trends could be appropriate provided information from its subheadings is not unnecessarily repeated. The material under the Challenges subheading could be relocated to another heading but I would like to hear other opinions on this proposal. —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:13, 10 November 2023 (EST)
::{{Reply to |AWilliamson}} While Challenges could be a standalone heading, are we talking current or future challenges? If current, then I believe it would be best as a standalone heading. If future, then it would fit in the current format. If both, then standalone. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 20:04, 11 November 2023 (EST)

:::{{Reply to |Mroma98}} I agree with all of your points. My interpretation of the information contained within the Challenges subheading is that it refers to current challenges. I would prefer to either get input from the individual who originally contributed the content or to obtain consensus from other editors before modifying. —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:47, 11 November 2023 (EST)
::::{{Reply to |AWilliamson}} OK. We're on the same page. I agree with both of your preferences. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 21:04, 11 November 2023 (EST)
::::{{Reply to |AWilliamson}} I agree that "Future Trends" and "Challenges" could be separated into two different subtopics. After reviewing the edit history, I believe Dr. Lucas is the one who created this heading, and he has indicated that any of the initial outline can be changed or removed. To me, it seems like almost everything currently in this section falls under the "Challenges" category, so that could be its own section. Then the "Future Trends" can be further developed. --[[User:Emmakd|Emma D.]] ([[User talk:Emmakd|talk]]) 15:29, 12 November 2023 (EST)

Under Ethical Considerations, I removed the second person pronouns with a more neutral one. Though the paragraph fits with the topic, writing in the second person is not standard practice for Wikipedia/Litwiki. Litwiki is the intellectual property of Dr. Gerald R. Lucas, PhD, and the rules and format of Wikipedia apply to Litwiki. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 15:07, 11 November 2023 (EST)

== Include external links section? ==

There are a few external (non-wikipedia) links in the article. Should we remove/replace the external links or create an External Links section? According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External%20links Wikipedia:External links]: "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:50, 10 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|AWilliamson}} I think we should as this follows the Wikipedia guidelines as well as Dr. Lucas' earlier advice. --[[User:Apjones428|Apjones428]] ([[User talk:Apjones428|talk]]) 12:47, 13 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|AWilliamson |Apjones428}} I agree that external links should be placed in an External links section. However, I question if the ones currently linked are needed external links. Most of the links are to Wikipedia pages. Instead, do these need to be potential LitWiki pages and the links formatted similarly to how one would link a page internally in Wikipedia, even if those pages do not exist? If so, I think the other three external links, PowerPoint, Google Slides, and Business Insider, should follow the same format. Or should any of the current external links inside the body of the article be links at all? My understanding of External links is that they should be reserved for further topic information. -- ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 16:03, 14 November 2023 (EST)

:::{{Reply to|Kamyers}} I don't believe the links are needed for the most part. The links do not lead to much more information. --([[User talk:Kynndra Watson|talk]]) Kynndra Watson 19:14, 14 November 2023 (EST)

:::{{Reply to|Kamyers}} My thinking was that we treat LitWiki as if it is Wikipedia. So the links to Wikipedia would be considered internal if this is the case. I think what information constitutes "further topic information" is up to us as the editors and we just need to come to a consensus on the matter and then edit accordingly. —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 22:09, 14 November 2023 (EST)

==Heading Structure==
There are inconsistencies with the subheading structure on the page. I propose we establish the heading structure as follows: Heading 1 (for section titles), Subheading 1 (H2 for subsections within the main section), and Subheading 2 (H3 for items that need to be defined). No italics in subheadings.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 14:11, 11 November 2023 (EST)
:Debbie, I agree. Your suggestion makes sense, as there should be consistency throughout. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 19:58, 11 November 2023 (EST)

: {{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} I support your proposal. — [[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:56, 11 November 2023 (EST)

I edited the headings and subheadings. Thanks for your input everyone--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 18:52, 12 November 2023 (EST)

: {{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} Thanks for doing this. As I was looking at some of the headings, it seems the H2 headings blend in with the text due to size similarity of the paragraphs below. I think these headings would benefit from being bold to help them stand out more. --[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 11:40, 14 November 2023 (EST)
I went ahead and changed these H2 headings to bold for viewability purposes. --[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 12:49, 17 November 2023 (EST)
: {{Reply to|Natecole54}} Bolding headings does nothing and should be avoided. See [[w:MOS:BOLD|MOS:BOLD]]. Thanks. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 17:19, 17 November 2023 (EST)

== Collaboration and Version Control ==

I think this section can be added to the digital documentation section.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 18:51, 12 November 2023 (EST)
:I moved version control to the digital documentation section. It was already listed there as a characteristic. I left collaboration as its own section. I'm not positive it falls under the characteristics of a digital document. I think it may be fine to leave that one on its own, but also down to do whatever the group thinks is best for it. [[User:Bryanna.kerbuski|Bryanna.kerbuski]] ([[User talk:Bryanna.kerbuski|talk]]) 17:53, 13 November 2023 (EST)

I moved the collaboration under the section for digital documentation, and I renamed the subheading "Remote Collaboration" because that is a characteristic of digital documents, but now that I've done it, I wonder if I should have just left it alone. Perhaps, I just need to edit the content under the heading. [[User:Kleinberger|Kleinberger]] ([[User talk:Kleinberger|talk]]) 06:09, 14 November 2023 (EST)

== Features of Technical Communication Section ==
When compared to the other sections of the talk page, this section seems a bit choppy. I'm thinking we can get a better intro paragraph and maybe either add longer paragraphs for each item, or combine some of the subheadings together. Any thoughts on this? --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda Austin]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 21:19, 12 November 2023 (EST)

I do think that longer paragraphs will make the section more thorough. Maybe sections like "clear" and "concise" could be combined? [[User: HRoney]]

:{{Reply to|HRoney}} Thank you for your feedback, I've gone ahead and combined those two sections along with adding more context to the remainder of each subheadings in the section. To all, please feel free to review and let me know of any questions or revision changes you'd think would work. [[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 14:04, 13 November 2023 (EST)

==Additional Sections==
What additional sections would we like to add to this article? I will be adding in more on multi-modality as well as more information to the SEO section of the page. Other thoughts? --[[User:Apjones428|Apjones428]] ([[User talk:Apjones428|talk]]) 12:47, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:I think adding in more on both multi-modality and SEO would be helpful. SEO is one that I am struggling with understanding. I think that it'd be nice to have more information about it on our wiki.[[User:Bryanna.kerbuski|Bryanna.kerbuski]] ([[User talk:Bryanna.kerbuski|talk]]) 17:53, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:: I agree we should add more info detailing SEO, but should we also go into more detail about the user centered design principles? We have mentioned it in a few spots but nothing really going into detail about its importance, especially in relation to SEO. I can organize my research and knock it out.[[User:Kynndra.watson]] 18:59, 14 November 2023 (EST)

::: I added the SEO section because of its importance to the user experience. Optimizing keywords and long-tail keywords should be right in a digital writer's wheelhouse. Feel free to add to this section! [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 10:17, 17 November 2023 (EST)

== Links to other Wikipedia articles ==

In the Wikipedia: Citing Sources guidelines, under the Wikidata section, it states, "Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source '''(just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources)'''. Bold font is mine. Five of the eight title, name, or word links go to another Wikipedia article. One of those articles states it doesn't exist. We should consider correcting these. [[User:RDrummond|Randy M. Drummond]] ([[User talk:RDrummond|talk]]) 13:00, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|RDrummond}} I think you are referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing%20sources Wikipedia:Citing sources] but possibly discussing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual%20of%20Style/Linking Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking]. Can you offer any clarification? —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 22:29, 14 November 2023 (EST)

@AWilliamson: I couldn’t find it specifically in the Style/Linking section, it even talks about linking to sister articles, but the Citing Sources has what I quoted. The article I used in Wiki Assignment 4, Wiki NPOV, the writer cited numerous statements and studies but linked them to Wiki pages about the government agency or corporation that said nothing about what he was putting in his article. That made me start to check links to other Wiki articles. [[User:RDrummond|Randy M. Drummond]] ([[User talk:RDrummond|talk]]) 09:07, 17 November 2023 (EST)

== Article Organization ==

I've been taking a look at the overall structure of the article, and I wonder if we might consider revising the organization. It just seems like there's a bit too much back and forth between Technical Writing topics and Digital Writing topics. Also, I wonder if the Historical Context should come before the Features section. Something about the overall structure just feels "off" to me. [[User:Kleinberger|Kleinberger]] ([[User talk:Kleinberger|talk]]) 06:23, 14 November 2023 (EST)

:{{reply to|Kleinberger}}I think the organization could be fine-tuned so it flows naturally. I agree the Historical Context should come before the features section. If we were to mimic the Technical Writing Wiki page, it has the overview and then history. Since there are technical writing topics and digital writing topics, we could add more context in the digital technologies and technical writing section that could merge these two concepts together to transition into topics on digital writing. The article should transition from what Technical Writing was to what it is now in the Digital Age. [[User:Jasteverson|Jasteverson]] ([[User talk:Jasteverson|talk]]) 18:40, 14 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|Kleinberger}}::{{Reply to|Jasteverson}} I added a section "Outline for Article Organization" at the end of the discussion page with some ideas on an updated outline if you'd like to review. Thank you! --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 22:17, 25 November 2023 (EST)

== Making it Flow ==

I agree with several of the other posts about overall organization and the flow of the article. I feel the article itself is good and has a lot of great content, I am just not sure about how it is currently laid out. For example, the intro is an "Overview of Technical Communication." In that section are types, aims and characteristics of technical communication. However, the next section is "Features of Technical Communication." All of these are related and should be included in one section if they all focus on various aspects of technical communication. There also seems to be a random order of the headings. The last heading on future trends is good, but right above that is pedagogical approaches. I think that should be earlier in the article. Also, there is a heading for examples of digital documents under a heading on digital documents which includes lots of subheadings. Again, I think content is great. I just think we could clean it up a bit.

Should We combine the personas section with the User Center Design/User Experience section?--[[User:Elaine Streeter|Elaine Streeter]] ([[User talk:Elaine Streeter|talk]]) 18:54, 24 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|Elaine Streeter}} I added a section "Outline for Article Organization" at the end of the discussion page with some ideas on an updated outline if you'd like to review. Thank you!--[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 22:16, 25 November 2023 (EST)

==Expansion Needed==

While reviewing the article, there are specific sections without enough detail that need to be expanded. These three sections are Overview-Types of Technical Communication, Ethical Considerations-The Public, and Future Trends and Challenges-Future Trends. Also is it okay to have a single subsection under Appropriateness? Do we need or have planned to have additional subsections or should we eliminate the subheading "Audience-specific"?--[[User:TBara]]([[User talk:TBara|talk]]) 14:14, 14 November 2023 (EST)

== Technical Documents ==

I broke out the Technical Documents subsection and made it its own category. The Wikipedia article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_writing technical writing] lists out the types of technical documents. I think it's a great way to expand on the piece. Feel free to add definitions or more subcategories. --[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 10:06, 20 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}}Thank you for adding this list. I'm working on the definitions too. I also added an entry for Documentation and moved "Instructions and Procedures" under it so all forms of documentation are under one entry. I think this makes sense, but see what you think. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 15:09, 20 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} I think it makes perfect sense! I just threw categories in to get it started and have already changed them around as I research. I am thinking of adding a separate "tools" section to mimic what is on the Wikipedia entry. Thoughts?

::{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}}I think adding "tools" is a good idea, but I wonder if it would be good to have them under the current "Digital Technologies and Technical Writing" section? The list would help to expand this section and would reinforce the digital connection. Just a thought.--[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 10:04, 21 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}}:{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} I added a section "Outline for Article Organization" at the end of the discussion page with some ideas on an updated outline if you'd like to review. Thank you! --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 22:14, 25 November 2023 (EST)

== Digital Technologies and Technical Writing ==

I reformatted this section to flesh it out. I renamed it "Digital Technologies Tools" to capture tools commonly used by technical writers as seen on Wikipedia's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_writing Technical Writing] entry. I added a few categories to get it started. Feel free to edit and add more categories as needed.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 08:05, 24 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} I added in information to the Image Processing Software and Text Editor sections. I'm hoping that was the route you were wanting to go with in those sections. I also read over the rest of the Digital Technologies Tools sections and fixed some things, like capitalization and some rewriting for clarity and some more neutral tones. Please let me know if I need to make any changes to my additions, thank you! --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 21:31, 25 November 2023 (EST)

==User Experience==

Everything is looking great! Wanted to give everyone a heads up that I am currently working on expanding the user experience section and will be adding Information Architecture, Responsiveness, and Usability to it. I should be adding those up over the next few days. Let me know if you see anywhere else here that needs to be expounded on. Thanks! --[[User:Kamyers|Kamyers]] ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 09:43, 24 November 2023 (EST)

== Outline for Article Organization ==

Hi, everyone. I've been thinking of how the article is outlined, and this may be a good idea to start with.
There are also some notes I've made included in the outline:

1. Overview
2. Historical Context
3. Features of Technical Communication
4. Personas in Digital Writing
5. Rhetorical Strategies in the Digital Age
6. Digital Technologies Tools
7. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
8. Technical Documents
(This section seems overwhelming. Could we combine sections to create longer paragraphs?)
9. Digital Documentation
(There is a long list of sections here that have short sentences. Could some of the sections be combined to create paragraphs? We could have the Technical Documents and Digital Documentation mirror each other in how they're formatted.)
10. Examples of Digital Documents
(Could this become a section in the Digital Documentation section above?)
11. User Experience
(I believe someone is editing this section?)
12. Ethical Considerations
13. Pedagogical Approaches
14. Future Trends and Challenges
15. References

Once we agree on the article's flow, we can edit each section with the same style ideals. Thoughts or recommendations?

:{{Reply to|Amanda.Austin1}} I am currently working on User Experience. {{Reply to|Elaine Streeter}} mentioned adding the personas into this section. I think it could be possibly added to User Research, but I might find a better place for it in UX. I'm not sure it needs it's own section, but I could be overruled. Let me know, and I'll get it added in. For the smaller short sentence sections in Digital Documentation, I agree that these could be combined. I also think Examples of Digital Documents could go into Digital Documents. --[[User:Kamyers|Kamyers]] ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 10:49, 26 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Amanda.Austin1}} I support your organization proposal. RE: the long list of definitions and short sentences. I don't mind that format because it mirrors what's on Wikipedia, Dr. Lucas' text, and how the information is presented in the technical communication texts. It aids in keeping the info scannable. But I do agree to keep the Technical Documents and Digital Documentation sections similar in format.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 10:36, 27 November 2023 (EST)
::{{Reply to|Amanda.Austin1}}I was about to reply to this when I saw you have already reorganized, which is great. I particularly think it was important to move "Historical Context" up.--[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Kamyers}} :{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} Hi everyone, I went ahead and rearranged the outline for better flow. I also left the Digital Documentation section like you recommended Debbie. I think now that the layout is good, we can go in and copy edit the article for any errors or clarity. --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 16:12, 27 November 2023 (EST)

I have also been thinking about the article's organization. I think a lot of the sections can be combined so it's not so overwhelming. Below is my proposal, which would condense everything into 6 major sections instead of 13. I have not removed anything at all, merely restructured in a way that makes more sense (to me at least). I am happy to reformat this way and preserve everyone's text, but would love some feedback before making a major change. [[User:Emmakd|Emmakd]] Emma D. 17:41, 28 November 2023 (EST)
:{{Reply to|Emmakd}} I don't mind the structure being condensed into 6 sections instead of 13. Just be mindful of the citation template code in the body that supports the shortened footnote code. --[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 05:48, 29 November 2023 (EST)

I went ahead and reorganized the sections. It was mostly just moving the several sections about digital writing into subsections underneath a single "Strategies for Digital Writing" section. I think this has messed with the formatting of some of the subheadings, I'll try to go back through and make sure everything is uniform, but it seems there are multiple people editing right now, so I'll wait until later as to not interfere. --Emma D. 18:55, 29 November 2023 (EST)

== Late to the party ==

First of all - I want to apologize to the whole class for not jumping in sooner, but this has been a rough semester. Secondly, please let me know where I can help. I will be adding my section or building on one of the others this week, and I see a couple of sections that can be edited for conciseness and tightened up a bit. My life is still a bit of a trainwreck since my mother's death - but I'm happy to help where needed.--[[User:Valerie Emerick|Valerie Emerick]] ([[User talk:Valerie Emerick|talk]]) 21:23, 26 November 2023 (EST)

I am also late to party, Valerie. I am happy to help out wherever, but I was thinking about expanding the UDC section to include IA and maybe reach into remediation in the Digital Documents section. Also happy to proofread wherever. --[[User:Ebyington3|Ebyington3]] ([[User talk:Ebyington3|talk]]) 21:21, 28 November 2023 (EST)

== Citations in lead section ==

Please ignore. I know now. Thanks. @Natecole54 You removed a citation yesterday evening from the lead section stating citations should only be in the body of the article. I don't remember reading that. I was trying to add citations because the lead was generated with ChatGPT and has no citations. Where can I find that?

== Images ==

Hey everyone! I was looking over the page and realized that the article is very long with no pictures or examples. If it pleases the group, I can go through and add pictorial examples from our textbooks and readings to go along with what we are talking about in certain sections and then add the ref to it? [[User:Ebyington3|Ebyington3]] ([[User talk:Ebyington3|talk]]) 06:42, 29 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Ebyington3}} That is a wonderful idea. --[[User:APitts]]

:{{Reply to|Elbyington3}} Please let me know if you need anything help with adding picture. I'm going through and expanding as needed on subjects and organization. --[[User:JCaruso]] ([[User talk:JCaruso|talk]]) 09:39, 29 November 2023 (EST)

== Multimodality ==

I know this topic is covered under the characteristics topic; however, I feel like this is essential to user experience as well. Unless I'm missing something, I plan to add and expand this approach/theory under user-experience referring to our texts as well and examples, etc.

Please let me know if you disagree or think this is a bad idea. --[[User:JCaruso]] ([[User talk:JCaruso|talk]]) 10:30, 29 November 2023 (EST)

Talk:Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-12-01T02:10:39Z

Mroma98: /* Citation question */

==Layout and Lead==
Just to get this thing going, I have created the article, developed a rudimentary layout, and added a lead written by ChatGTP. '''All of this may be kept or changed'''. I would certainly revise or rewrite the lead. Questions, ideas, discussion, and comments about the project should be posted here. I'm looking forward to seeing what you all come up with this semester. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 09:38, 3 October 2023 (EDT)
:If no one else is going to address the lead being written by ChatGPT, I'm going to go ahead and jump in and make revisions.--[[User:Valerie Emerick|Valerie Emerick]] ([[User talk:Valerie Emerick|talk]]) 07:15, 28 November 2023 (EST)
::The revised introduction looks great, Valerie! The only thing that I would suggest potentially changing is in the last sentence. I believe "our" or any first or second person pronouns is not aligned with Wikipedia's/Litwiki's neutral point of view. I could be wrong, though. Other than that, I love the new intro! --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 21:07, 30 November 2023 (EST)

==Citation question==
I am citing a later edition of a source that is cited elsewhere on the page. (Markel, Mike, and Selber, Stuart. (2021). Technical Communication (13th ed). This version has a second author. Should these entries be combined somehow?
:{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} Yes. If you’re using the updated version, update the earlier source. Great question, but don’t forget to sign your talk posts. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 14:35, 2 November 2023 (EDT)

::{{Reply to|Admin}}Thank you. I have linked the first citation in the article (paragraph 1) to my Markel use under "Rhetorical Strategies." {{Reply to|mroma98}} and {{Reply to|RDrummond}}, in looking at the article history, it seems one of you may have added the Markel references under Ethical Considerations. I did not update those references yet because the oldest copyright date on my source is 2012, and I was also unsure of the page numbers. If you review the citation I added, and it is appropriate to reference, the shortened reference is <ref name="Markel">. Thanks. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 18:23, 13 November 2023 (EST)
:::{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} Thank you, Beth. I contributed to the Ethical Considerations section. My Markel source was from 2009, but the same information appears in later editions, so the 2012 reference should work, too. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 16:26, 25 November 2023 (EST)
::::{{Reply to|mroma98}}Thanks for replying. I found your information in the newer version and moved your citations so we can all use the same Markel source.--[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 17:33, 30 November 2023 (EST)
:::::{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} Thank you for that, Beth. Looks great! It definitely flows better and more sensibly to have the same edition from Mr. Markel throughout the article. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 21:10, 30 November 2023 (EST)

==Shortened Footnotes==
I added the template to the project. All you need to do is add the code for your reference under Bibliography and then the SFN code under citations. I made a quick, visual [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QGEr_RhDMKZvPqvncmDR9eoHRmOLeFkXpzp9nzFb-Sg/edit?usp=sharing step-by-step] that show you how to pull the [https://grlucas.net/grl/April%2015,%202019 template] and paste the code.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 14:11, 11 November 2023 (EST)
:Nice work! Thanks [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 09:28, 13 November 2023 (EST)

I just wanted to let everyone know that I worked on cleaning up the citations and making them all look like shortened footnotes per Dr. Lucas's direction. If there was a citation that looked like it belonged in the bibliography, I added it there. Each one of the citations links to the bibliography.--[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 00:27, 20 November 2023
:{{reply to|Natecole54}} Nice work! I was slowly working my way through the citations to convert them to SNF format, and I am glad to see that they are all done.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 08:26, 20 November 2023 (EST)
::{{reply to|Natecole54}}{{reply to|Debbiewolfe}}Thanks to both of you for taking this on! --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 11:02, 20 November 2023 (EST)
:{{reply to|Debbiewolfe}}{{reply to|Beth Kennedy}}You're welcome. I will monitor this section and make sure any new additions get formatted correctly.

== References question ==

Should References be the heading, followed by Bibliography as a subheading? Would this only apply if we are using Notes, Citations, and a Bibliography?--[[User:CEToledo|CEToledo]] ([[User talk:CEToledo|talk]]) 19:14, 4 November 2023 (EDT)
: {{Reply to|CEToledo}} You can do whatever seems logical for this. Check out [[w:The Man Who Studied Yoga|The Man Who Studied Yoga]] to see a way to approach a references section. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 07:27, 6 November 2023 (EST)

--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 12:50, 6 November 2023 (EST)== Shortened footnote code ==
I am having trouble understanding where the placement of the works cited and the shortened footnote code should be. I sent an inquiry email to Dr. Lucas. [[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 14:41, 5 November 2023 (EST)
:{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} I would put references at the bottom, in a bibliography section. Then you can use the shortened footnotes in the body. This is an easier approach for everyone editing, as they can easily consult the bibliography to see if a reference has been used and entered. —07:30, 6 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} and {{Reply to|CEToledo}} It seems we have two forms of citation happening now: the original one and the revised format that Debbie created. (Thanks Debbie and thanks for the tutorial (above), very helpful!). I think the bibliography with citations using shortened footnotes is a good approach, and my vote would be to transition to this. But it would be good to have consensus. Is everyone ok with this approach? --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 19:07, 13 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to |Beth Kennedy}} I vote SFN form. --[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 05:04, 14 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to |Beth Kennedy}} My vote is for the bibliography with citations using shortened footnotes. I think that will present a clean and readable format, since we are referencing similar marterial. --[[User:Kamyers|Kamyers]] ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 15:06, 14 November 2023 (EST)

Do I need to have the citation section? I see that my shortened footnotes are displaying in the reference section.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 15:48, 6 November 2023 (EST)

For the User Experience section, I reference citation 23. Do I need to add the citation to each entry there since they all come from the same source or will one citation work?--[[User:Elaine Streeter|Elaine Streeter]] ([[User talk:Elaine Streeter|talk]]) 19:06, 16 November 2023 (EST)

I'm struggling with my references and citations. It currently displays an error message. I updated the section "user guides" and tried to enter in my template and this is the error message I received. What am I doing wrong? --[[User:APitts]]
:::{{Reply to|APitts}}The shortened footnotes just don't need to be enclosed with the "ref" parameters. I removed them, and it's good to go. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 12:47, 22 November 2023 (EST)

Just wanted to let everyone know to check to see if the reference you're using is already listed in the bibliography section. If it is, then just add the shortened footnote in the content. If it's not, then add the reference in the bibliography as well as the sfn in the content. Adding duplicate references in the bibliography cause errors to happen in the citations.--[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 15:18, 27 November 2023 (EST)

== Paragraph Blocks ==

I can't believe how well and quickly this is coming along. At any rate, on to my dispute...are we adhering to any particular standard in terms of the size of paragraph blocks? Too long and it reduces the likelihood of it being read, too brief (a single sentence) and the topic/subtopic of the contribution seems too unnecessary to even mention. -- [[User:CBrown]]

:I separated the Digital Document and User Experience sections. I think paragraph blocks should have around three to four sentences max. More than that, we can create a new subheading.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 06:41, 8 November 2023 (EST)

::The Ethical Considerations section seems to run together. Can it be separated into smaller sections with the primary categories as headings: "Employer," "Public," and "Environment?" --[[User:APitts]]

:::@APitts I agree that it would work better to separate into smaller sections. It would make them appear neater and more organized. -- [[User: HRoney]]

::::Can we agree then that there are no more additions to the "Ethical Considerations" section? [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 09:50, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:::::Edits have been made to separate the Ethical Considerations portion into categories. Can someone look over my work or make any edits as you see fit? -- [[User: APitts]]

:::::{{Reply to |APitts}} I looked over your work and it looks good to me! There were a couple of grammatical errors that I edited. -- [[User: HRoney]]

::::::{{Reply to |CBrown}} I agree that a single sentence is too brief for a topic/subtopic but I don't think that means all sections like that are "too unnecessary to even mention". I think that for single sentences we need to review that area to determine if we need to add further details. --[[User:TBara]]([[User talk:TBara|talk]]) 13:53, 14 November 2023 (EST)

:::::::{{Reply to |TBara}} I am fairly certain that is the way the word "seem" works. -- [[User:CBrown]]

Added indents to keep the section readable, per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Indentation wikipedia indentation] philosophy. [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 10:48, 14 November 2023 (EST)

== Topics vs. Subtopics ==

Why are future trends and challenges separate subtopics under the future trends and challenges topic? Should there not be an overview of future trends and challenges followed by subtopics of examples of future trends and challenges, e.g. artificial intelligence. -- [[User:CBrown]]

:I am in favor of this idea/change if others agree. --[[User:Elaine Streeter|Elaine Streeter]] ([[User talk:Elaine Streeter|talk]]) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|CBrown}} The problem here is that the heading Future Trends and Challenges has room for interpretation. I think the section should just be titled Future Trends. I also think an overview of future trends could be appropriate provided information from its subheadings is not unnecessarily repeated. The material under the Challenges subheading could be relocated to another heading but I would like to hear other opinions on this proposal. —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:13, 10 November 2023 (EST)
::{{Reply to |AWilliamson}} While Challenges could be a standalone heading, are we talking current or future challenges? If current, then I believe it would be best as a standalone heading. If future, then it would fit in the current format. If both, then standalone. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 20:04, 11 November 2023 (EST)

:::{{Reply to |Mroma98}} I agree with all of your points. My interpretation of the information contained within the Challenges subheading is that it refers to current challenges. I would prefer to either get input from the individual who originally contributed the content or to obtain consensus from other editors before modifying. —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:47, 11 November 2023 (EST)
::::{{Reply to |AWilliamson}} OK. We're on the same page. I agree with both of your preferences. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 21:04, 11 November 2023 (EST)
::::{{Reply to |AWilliamson}} I agree that "Future Trends" and "Challenges" could be separated into two different subtopics. After reviewing the edit history, I believe Dr. Lucas is the one who created this heading, and he has indicated that any of the initial outline can be changed or removed. To me, it seems like almost everything currently in this section falls under the "Challenges" category, so that could be its own section. Then the "Future Trends" can be further developed. --[[User:Emmakd|Emma D.]] ([[User talk:Emmakd|talk]]) 15:29, 12 November 2023 (EST)

Under Ethical Considerations, I removed the second person pronouns with a more neutral one. Though the paragraph fits with the topic, writing in the second person is not standard practice for Wikipedia/Litwiki. Litwiki is the intellectual property of Dr. Gerald R. Lucas, PhD, and the rules and format of Wikipedia apply to Litwiki. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 15:07, 11 November 2023 (EST)

== Include external links section? ==

There are a few external (non-wikipedia) links in the article. Should we remove/replace the external links or create an External Links section? According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External%20links Wikipedia:External links]: "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:50, 10 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|AWilliamson}} I think we should as this follows the Wikipedia guidelines as well as Dr. Lucas' earlier advice. --[[User:Apjones428|Apjones428]] ([[User talk:Apjones428|talk]]) 12:47, 13 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|AWilliamson |Apjones428}} I agree that external links should be placed in an External links section. However, I question if the ones currently linked are needed external links. Most of the links are to Wikipedia pages. Instead, do these need to be potential LitWiki pages and the links formatted similarly to how one would link a page internally in Wikipedia, even if those pages do not exist? If so, I think the other three external links, PowerPoint, Google Slides, and Business Insider, should follow the same format. Or should any of the current external links inside the body of the article be links at all? My understanding of External links is that they should be reserved for further topic information. -- ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 16:03, 14 November 2023 (EST)

:::{{Reply to|Kamyers}} I don't believe the links are needed for the most part. The links do not lead to much more information. --([[User talk:Kynndra Watson|talk]]) Kynndra Watson 19:14, 14 November 2023 (EST)

:::{{Reply to|Kamyers}} My thinking was that we treat LitWiki as if it is Wikipedia. So the links to Wikipedia would be considered internal if this is the case. I think what information constitutes "further topic information" is up to us as the editors and we just need to come to a consensus on the matter and then edit accordingly. —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 22:09, 14 November 2023 (EST)

==Heading Structure==
There are inconsistencies with the subheading structure on the page. I propose we establish the heading structure as follows: Heading 1 (for section titles), Subheading 1 (H2 for subsections within the main section), and Subheading 2 (H3 for items that need to be defined). No italics in subheadings.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 14:11, 11 November 2023 (EST)
:Debbie, I agree. Your suggestion makes sense, as there should be consistency throughout. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 19:58, 11 November 2023 (EST)

: {{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} I support your proposal. — [[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:56, 11 November 2023 (EST)

I edited the headings and subheadings. Thanks for your input everyone--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 18:52, 12 November 2023 (EST)

: {{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} Thanks for doing this. As I was looking at some of the headings, it seems the H2 headings blend in with the text due to size similarity of the paragraphs below. I think these headings would benefit from being bold to help them stand out more. --[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 11:40, 14 November 2023 (EST)
I went ahead and changed these H2 headings to bold for viewability purposes. --[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 12:49, 17 November 2023 (EST)
: {{Reply to|Natecole54}} Bolding headings does nothing and should be avoided. See [[w:MOS:BOLD|MOS:BOLD]]. Thanks. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 17:19, 17 November 2023 (EST)

== Collaboration and Version Control ==

I think this section can be added to the digital documentation section.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 18:51, 12 November 2023 (EST)
:I moved version control to the digital documentation section. It was already listed there as a characteristic. I left collaboration as its own section. I'm not positive it falls under the characteristics of a digital document. I think it may be fine to leave that one on its own, but also down to do whatever the group thinks is best for it. [[User:Bryanna.kerbuski|Bryanna.kerbuski]] ([[User talk:Bryanna.kerbuski|talk]]) 17:53, 13 November 2023 (EST)

I moved the collaboration under the section for digital documentation, and I renamed the subheading "Remote Collaboration" because that is a characteristic of digital documents, but now that I've done it, I wonder if I should have just left it alone. Perhaps, I just need to edit the content under the heading. [[User:Kleinberger|Kleinberger]] ([[User talk:Kleinberger|talk]]) 06:09, 14 November 2023 (EST)

== Features of Technical Communication Section ==
When compared to the other sections of the talk page, this section seems a bit choppy. I'm thinking we can get a better intro paragraph and maybe either add longer paragraphs for each item, or combine some of the subheadings together. Any thoughts on this? --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda Austin]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 21:19, 12 November 2023 (EST)

I do think that longer paragraphs will make the section more thorough. Maybe sections like "clear" and "concise" could be combined? [[User: HRoney]]

:{{Reply to|HRoney}} Thank you for your feedback, I've gone ahead and combined those two sections along with adding more context to the remainder of each subheadings in the section. To all, please feel free to review and let me know of any questions or revision changes you'd think would work. [[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 14:04, 13 November 2023 (EST)

==Additional Sections==
What additional sections would we like to add to this article? I will be adding in more on multi-modality as well as more information to the SEO section of the page. Other thoughts? --[[User:Apjones428|Apjones428]] ([[User talk:Apjones428|talk]]) 12:47, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:I think adding in more on both multi-modality and SEO would be helpful. SEO is one that I am struggling with understanding. I think that it'd be nice to have more information about it on our wiki.[[User:Bryanna.kerbuski|Bryanna.kerbuski]] ([[User talk:Bryanna.kerbuski|talk]]) 17:53, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:: I agree we should add more info detailing SEO, but should we also go into more detail about the user centered design principles? We have mentioned it in a few spots but nothing really going into detail about its importance, especially in relation to SEO. I can organize my research and knock it out.[[User:Kynndra.watson]] 18:59, 14 November 2023 (EST)

::: I added the SEO section because of its importance to the user experience. Optimizing keywords and long-tail keywords should be right in a digital writer's wheelhouse. Feel free to add to this section! [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 10:17, 17 November 2023 (EST)

== Links to other Wikipedia articles ==

In the Wikipedia: Citing Sources guidelines, under the Wikidata section, it states, "Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source '''(just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources)'''. Bold font is mine. Five of the eight title, name, or word links go to another Wikipedia article. One of those articles states it doesn't exist. We should consider correcting these. [[User:RDrummond|Randy M. Drummond]] ([[User talk:RDrummond|talk]]) 13:00, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|RDrummond}} I think you are referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing%20sources Wikipedia:Citing sources] but possibly discussing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual%20of%20Style/Linking Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking]. Can you offer any clarification? —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 22:29, 14 November 2023 (EST)

@AWilliamson: I couldn’t find it specifically in the Style/Linking section, it even talks about linking to sister articles, but the Citing Sources has what I quoted. The article I used in Wiki Assignment 4, Wiki NPOV, the writer cited numerous statements and studies but linked them to Wiki pages about the government agency or corporation that said nothing about what he was putting in his article. That made me start to check links to other Wiki articles. [[User:RDrummond|Randy M. Drummond]] ([[User talk:RDrummond|talk]]) 09:07, 17 November 2023 (EST)

== Article Organization ==

I've been taking a look at the overall structure of the article, and I wonder if we might consider revising the organization. It just seems like there's a bit too much back and forth between Technical Writing topics and Digital Writing topics. Also, I wonder if the Historical Context should come before the Features section. Something about the overall structure just feels "off" to me. [[User:Kleinberger|Kleinberger]] ([[User talk:Kleinberger|talk]]) 06:23, 14 November 2023 (EST)

:{{reply to|Kleinberger}}I think the organization could be fine-tuned so it flows naturally. I agree the Historical Context should come before the features section. If we were to mimic the Technical Writing Wiki page, it has the overview and then history. Since there are technical writing topics and digital writing topics, we could add more context in the digital technologies and technical writing section that could merge these two concepts together to transition into topics on digital writing. The article should transition from what Technical Writing was to what it is now in the Digital Age. [[User:Jasteverson|Jasteverson]] ([[User talk:Jasteverson|talk]]) 18:40, 14 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|Kleinberger}}::{{Reply to|Jasteverson}} I added a section "Outline for Article Organization" at the end of the discussion page with some ideas on an updated outline if you'd like to review. Thank you! --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 22:17, 25 November 2023 (EST)

== Making it Flow ==

I agree with several of the other posts about overall organization and the flow of the article. I feel the article itself is good and has a lot of great content, I am just not sure about how it is currently laid out. For example, the intro is an "Overview of Technical Communication." In that section are types, aims and characteristics of technical communication. However, the next section is "Features of Technical Communication." All of these are related and should be included in one section if they all focus on various aspects of technical communication. There also seems to be a random order of the headings. The last heading on future trends is good, but right above that is pedagogical approaches. I think that should be earlier in the article. Also, there is a heading for examples of digital documents under a heading on digital documents which includes lots of subheadings. Again, I think content is great. I just think we could clean it up a bit.

Should We combine the personas section with the User Center Design/User Experience section?--[[User:Elaine Streeter|Elaine Streeter]] ([[User talk:Elaine Streeter|talk]]) 18:54, 24 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|Elaine Streeter}} I added a section "Outline for Article Organization" at the end of the discussion page with some ideas on an updated outline if you'd like to review. Thank you!--[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 22:16, 25 November 2023 (EST)

==Expansion Needed==

While reviewing the article, there are specific sections without enough detail that need to be expanded. These three sections are Overview-Types of Technical Communication, Ethical Considerations-The Public, and Future Trends and Challenges-Future Trends. Also is it okay to have a single subsection under Appropriateness? Do we need or have planned to have additional subsections or should we eliminate the subheading "Audience-specific"?--[[User:TBara]]([[User talk:TBara|talk]]) 14:14, 14 November 2023 (EST)

== Technical Documents ==

I broke out the Technical Documents subsection and made it its own category. The Wikipedia article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_writing technical writing] lists out the types of technical documents. I think it's a great way to expand on the piece. Feel free to add definitions or more subcategories. --[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 10:06, 20 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}}Thank you for adding this list. I'm working on the definitions too. I also added an entry for Documentation and moved "Instructions and Procedures" under it so all forms of documentation are under one entry. I think this makes sense, but see what you think. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 15:09, 20 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} I think it makes perfect sense! I just threw categories in to get it started and have already changed them around as I research. I am thinking of adding a separate "tools" section to mimic what is on the Wikipedia entry. Thoughts?

::{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}}I think adding "tools" is a good idea, but I wonder if it would be good to have them under the current "Digital Technologies and Technical Writing" section? The list would help to expand this section and would reinforce the digital connection. Just a thought.--[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 10:04, 21 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}}:{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} I added a section "Outline for Article Organization" at the end of the discussion page with some ideas on an updated outline if you'd like to review. Thank you! --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 22:14, 25 November 2023 (EST)

== Digital Technologies and Technical Writing ==

I reformatted this section to flesh it out. I renamed it "Digital Technologies Tools" to capture tools commonly used by technical writers as seen on Wikipedia's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_writing Technical Writing] entry. I added a few categories to get it started. Feel free to edit and add more categories as needed.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 08:05, 24 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} I added in information to the Image Processing Software and Text Editor sections. I'm hoping that was the route you were wanting to go with in those sections. I also read over the rest of the Digital Technologies Tools sections and fixed some things, like capitalization and some rewriting for clarity and some more neutral tones. Please let me know if I need to make any changes to my additions, thank you! --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 21:31, 25 November 2023 (EST)

==User Experience==

Everything is looking great! Wanted to give everyone a heads up that I am currently working on expanding the user experience section and will be adding Information Architecture, Responsiveness, and Usability to it. I should be adding those up over the next few days. Let me know if you see anywhere else here that needs to be expounded on. Thanks! --[[User:Kamyers|Kamyers]] ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 09:43, 24 November 2023 (EST)

== Outline for Article Organization ==

Hi, everyone. I've been thinking of how the article is outlined, and this may be a good idea to start with.
There are also some notes I've made included in the outline:

1. Overview
2. Historical Context
3. Features of Technical Communication
4. Personas in Digital Writing
5. Rhetorical Strategies in the Digital Age
6. Digital Technologies Tools
7. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
8. Technical Documents
(This section seems overwhelming. Could we combine sections to create longer paragraphs?)
9. Digital Documentation
(There is a long list of sections here that have short sentences. Could some of the sections be combined to create paragraphs? We could have the Technical Documents and Digital Documentation mirror each other in how they're formatted.)
10. Examples of Digital Documents
(Could this become a section in the Digital Documentation section above?)
11. User Experience
(I believe someone is editing this section?)
12. Ethical Considerations
13. Pedagogical Approaches
14. Future Trends and Challenges
15. References

Once we agree on the article's flow, we can edit each section with the same style ideals. Thoughts or recommendations?

:{{Reply to|Amanda.Austin1}} I am currently working on User Experience. {{Reply to|Elaine Streeter}} mentioned adding the personas into this section. I think it could be possibly added to User Research, but I might find a better place for it in UX. I'm not sure it needs it's own section, but I could be overruled. Let me know, and I'll get it added in. For the smaller short sentence sections in Digital Documentation, I agree that these could be combined. I also think Examples of Digital Documents could go into Digital Documents. --[[User:Kamyers|Kamyers]] ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 10:49, 26 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Amanda.Austin1}} I support your organization proposal. RE: the long list of definitions and short sentences. I don't mind that format because it mirrors what's on Wikipedia, Dr. Lucas' text, and how the information is presented in the technical communication texts. It aids in keeping the info scannable. But I do agree to keep the Technical Documents and Digital Documentation sections similar in format.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 10:36, 27 November 2023 (EST)
::{{Reply to|Amanda.Austin1}}I was about to reply to this when I saw you have already reorganized, which is great. I particularly think it was important to move "Historical Context" up.--[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Kamyers}} :{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} Hi everyone, I went ahead and rearranged the outline for better flow. I also left the Digital Documentation section like you recommended Debbie. I think now that the layout is good, we can go in and copy edit the article for any errors or clarity. --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 16:12, 27 November 2023 (EST)

I have also been thinking about the article's organization. I think a lot of the sections can be combined so it's not so overwhelming. Below is my proposal, which would condense everything into 6 major sections instead of 13. I have not removed anything at all, merely restructured in a way that makes more sense (to me at least). I am happy to reformat this way and preserve everyone's text, but would love some feedback before making a major change. [[User:Emmakd|Emmakd]] Emma D. 17:41, 28 November 2023 (EST)
:{{Reply to|Emmakd}} I don't mind the structure being condensed into 6 sections instead of 13. Just be mindful of the citation template code in the body that supports the shortened footnote code. --[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 05:48, 29 November 2023 (EST)

I went ahead and reorganized the sections. It was mostly just moving the several sections about digital writing into subsections underneath a single "Strategies for Digital Writing" section. I think this has messed with the formatting of some of the subheadings, I'll try to go back through and make sure everything is uniform, but it seems there are multiple people editing right now, so I'll wait until later as to not interfere. --Emma D. 18:55, 29 November 2023 (EST)

== Late to the party ==

First of all - I want to apologize to the whole class for not jumping in sooner, but this has been a rough semester. Secondly, please let me know where I can help. I will be adding my section or building on one of the others this week, and I see a couple of sections that can be edited for conciseness and tightened up a bit. My life is still a bit of a trainwreck since my mother's death - but I'm happy to help where needed.--[[User:Valerie Emerick|Valerie Emerick]] ([[User talk:Valerie Emerick|talk]]) 21:23, 26 November 2023 (EST)

I am also late to party, Valerie. I am happy to help out wherever, but I was thinking about expanding the UDC section to include IA and maybe reach into remediation in the Digital Documents section. Also happy to proofread wherever. --[[User:Ebyington3|Ebyington3]] ([[User talk:Ebyington3|talk]]) 21:21, 28 November 2023 (EST)

== Citations in lead section ==

Please ignore. I know now. Thanks. @Natecole54 You removed a citation yesterday evening from the lead section stating citations should only be in the body of the article. I don't remember reading that. I was trying to add citations because the lead was generated with ChatGPT and has no citations. Where can I find that?

== Images ==

Hey everyone! I was looking over the page and realized that the article is very long with no pictures or examples. If it pleases the group, I can go through and add pictorial examples from our textbooks and readings to go along with what we are talking about in certain sections and then add the ref to it? [[User:Ebyington3|Ebyington3]] ([[User talk:Ebyington3|talk]]) 06:42, 29 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Ebyington3}} That is a wonderful idea. --[[User:APitts]]

:{{Reply to|Elbyington3}} Please let me know if you need anything help with adding picture. I'm going through and expanding as needed on subjects and organization. --[[User:JCaruso]] ([[User talk:JCaruso|talk]]) 09:39, 29 November 2023 (EST)

== Multimodality ==

I know this topic is covered under the characteristics topic; however, I feel like this is essential to user experience as well. Unless I'm missing something, I plan to add and expand this approach/theory under user-experience referring to our texts as well and examples, etc.

Please let me know if you disagree or think this is a bad idea. --[[User:JCaruso]] ([[User talk:JCaruso|talk]]) 10:30, 29 November 2023 (EST)

Talk:Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-12-01T02:07:24Z

Mroma98: /* Layout and Lead */

==Layout and Lead==
Just to get this thing going, I have created the article, developed a rudimentary layout, and added a lead written by ChatGTP. '''All of this may be kept or changed'''. I would certainly revise or rewrite the lead. Questions, ideas, discussion, and comments about the project should be posted here. I'm looking forward to seeing what you all come up with this semester. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 09:38, 3 October 2023 (EDT)
:If no one else is going to address the lead being written by ChatGPT, I'm going to go ahead and jump in and make revisions.--[[User:Valerie Emerick|Valerie Emerick]] ([[User talk:Valerie Emerick|talk]]) 07:15, 28 November 2023 (EST)
::The revised introduction looks great, Valerie! The only thing that I would suggest potentially changing is in the last sentence. I believe "our" or any first or second person pronouns is not aligned with Wikipedia's/Litwiki's neutral point of view. I could be wrong, though. Other than that, I love the new intro! --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 21:07, 30 November 2023 (EST)

==Citation question==
I am citing a later edition of a source that is cited elsewhere on the page. (Markel, Mike, and Selber, Stuart. (2021). Technical Communication (13th ed). This version has a second author. Should these entries be combined somehow?
:{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} Yes. If you’re using the updated version, update the earlier source. Great question, but don’t forget to sign your talk posts. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 14:35, 2 November 2023 (EDT)

::{{Reply to|Admin}}Thank you. I have linked the first citation in the article (paragraph 1) to my Markel use under "Rhetorical Strategies." {{Reply to|mroma98}} and {{Reply to|RDrummond}}, in looking at the article history, it seems one of you may have added the Markel references under Ethical Considerations. I did not update those references yet because the oldest copyright date on my source is 2012, and I was also unsure of the page numbers. If you review the citation I added, and it is appropriate to reference, the shortened reference is <ref name="Markel">. Thanks. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 18:23, 13 November 2023 (EST)
:::{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} Thank you, Beth. I contributed to the Ethical Considerations section. My Markel source was from 2009, but the same information appears in later editions, so the 2012 reference should work, too. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 16:26, 25 November 2023 (EST)
::::{{Reply to|mroma98}}Thanks for replying. I found your information in the newer version and moved your citations so we can all use the same Markel source.--[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 17:33, 30 November 2023 (EST)

==Shortened Footnotes==
I added the template to the project. All you need to do is add the code for your reference under Bibliography and then the SFN code under citations. I made a quick, visual [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QGEr_RhDMKZvPqvncmDR9eoHRmOLeFkXpzp9nzFb-Sg/edit?usp=sharing step-by-step] that show you how to pull the [https://grlucas.net/grl/April%2015,%202019 template] and paste the code.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 14:11, 11 November 2023 (EST)
:Nice work! Thanks [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 09:28, 13 November 2023 (EST)

I just wanted to let everyone know that I worked on cleaning up the citations and making them all look like shortened footnotes per Dr. Lucas's direction. If there was a citation that looked like it belonged in the bibliography, I added it there. Each one of the citations links to the bibliography.--[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 00:27, 20 November 2023
:{{reply to|Natecole54}} Nice work! I was slowly working my way through the citations to convert them to SNF format, and I am glad to see that they are all done.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 08:26, 20 November 2023 (EST)
::{{reply to|Natecole54}}{{reply to|Debbiewolfe}}Thanks to both of you for taking this on! --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 11:02, 20 November 2023 (EST)
:{{reply to|Debbiewolfe}}{{reply to|Beth Kennedy}}You're welcome. I will monitor this section and make sure any new additions get formatted correctly.

== References question ==

Should References be the heading, followed by Bibliography as a subheading? Would this only apply if we are using Notes, Citations, and a Bibliography?--[[User:CEToledo|CEToledo]] ([[User talk:CEToledo|talk]]) 19:14, 4 November 2023 (EDT)
: {{Reply to|CEToledo}} You can do whatever seems logical for this. Check out [[w:The Man Who Studied Yoga|The Man Who Studied Yoga]] to see a way to approach a references section. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 07:27, 6 November 2023 (EST)

--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 12:50, 6 November 2023 (EST)== Shortened footnote code ==
I am having trouble understanding where the placement of the works cited and the shortened footnote code should be. I sent an inquiry email to Dr. Lucas. [[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 14:41, 5 November 2023 (EST)
:{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} I would put references at the bottom, in a bibliography section. Then you can use the shortened footnotes in the body. This is an easier approach for everyone editing, as they can easily consult the bibliography to see if a reference has been used and entered. —07:30, 6 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} and {{Reply to|CEToledo}} It seems we have two forms of citation happening now: the original one and the revised format that Debbie created. (Thanks Debbie and thanks for the tutorial (above), very helpful!). I think the bibliography with citations using shortened footnotes is a good approach, and my vote would be to transition to this. But it would be good to have consensus. Is everyone ok with this approach? --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 19:07, 13 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to |Beth Kennedy}} I vote SFN form. --[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 05:04, 14 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to |Beth Kennedy}} My vote is for the bibliography with citations using shortened footnotes. I think that will present a clean and readable format, since we are referencing similar marterial. --[[User:Kamyers|Kamyers]] ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 15:06, 14 November 2023 (EST)

Do I need to have the citation section? I see that my shortened footnotes are displaying in the reference section.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 15:48, 6 November 2023 (EST)

For the User Experience section, I reference citation 23. Do I need to add the citation to each entry there since they all come from the same source or will one citation work?--[[User:Elaine Streeter|Elaine Streeter]] ([[User talk:Elaine Streeter|talk]]) 19:06, 16 November 2023 (EST)

I'm struggling with my references and citations. It currently displays an error message. I updated the section "user guides" and tried to enter in my template and this is the error message I received. What am I doing wrong? --[[User:APitts]]
:::{{Reply to|APitts}}The shortened footnotes just don't need to be enclosed with the "ref" parameters. I removed them, and it's good to go. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 12:47, 22 November 2023 (EST)

Just wanted to let everyone know to check to see if the reference you're using is already listed in the bibliography section. If it is, then just add the shortened footnote in the content. If it's not, then add the reference in the bibliography as well as the sfn in the content. Adding duplicate references in the bibliography cause errors to happen in the citations.--[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 15:18, 27 November 2023 (EST)

== Paragraph Blocks ==

I can't believe how well and quickly this is coming along. At any rate, on to my dispute...are we adhering to any particular standard in terms of the size of paragraph blocks? Too long and it reduces the likelihood of it being read, too brief (a single sentence) and the topic/subtopic of the contribution seems too unnecessary to even mention. -- [[User:CBrown]]

:I separated the Digital Document and User Experience sections. I think paragraph blocks should have around three to four sentences max. More than that, we can create a new subheading.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 06:41, 8 November 2023 (EST)

::The Ethical Considerations section seems to run together. Can it be separated into smaller sections with the primary categories as headings: "Employer," "Public," and "Environment?" --[[User:APitts]]

:::@APitts I agree that it would work better to separate into smaller sections. It would make them appear neater and more organized. -- [[User: HRoney]]

::::Can we agree then that there are no more additions to the "Ethical Considerations" section? [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 09:50, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:::::Edits have been made to separate the Ethical Considerations portion into categories. Can someone look over my work or make any edits as you see fit? -- [[User: APitts]]

:::::{{Reply to |APitts}} I looked over your work and it looks good to me! There were a couple of grammatical errors that I edited. -- [[User: HRoney]]

::::::{{Reply to |CBrown}} I agree that a single sentence is too brief for a topic/subtopic but I don't think that means all sections like that are "too unnecessary to even mention". I think that for single sentences we need to review that area to determine if we need to add further details. --[[User:TBara]]([[User talk:TBara|talk]]) 13:53, 14 November 2023 (EST)

:::::::{{Reply to |TBara}} I am fairly certain that is the way the word "seem" works. -- [[User:CBrown]]

Added indents to keep the section readable, per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Indentation wikipedia indentation] philosophy. [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 10:48, 14 November 2023 (EST)

== Topics vs. Subtopics ==

Why are future trends and challenges separate subtopics under the future trends and challenges topic? Should there not be an overview of future trends and challenges followed by subtopics of examples of future trends and challenges, e.g. artificial intelligence. -- [[User:CBrown]]

:I am in favor of this idea/change if others agree. --[[User:Elaine Streeter|Elaine Streeter]] ([[User talk:Elaine Streeter|talk]]) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|CBrown}} The problem here is that the heading Future Trends and Challenges has room for interpretation. I think the section should just be titled Future Trends. I also think an overview of future trends could be appropriate provided information from its subheadings is not unnecessarily repeated. The material under the Challenges subheading could be relocated to another heading but I would like to hear other opinions on this proposal. —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:13, 10 November 2023 (EST)
::{{Reply to |AWilliamson}} While Challenges could be a standalone heading, are we talking current or future challenges? If current, then I believe it would be best as a standalone heading. If future, then it would fit in the current format. If both, then standalone. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 20:04, 11 November 2023 (EST)

:::{{Reply to |Mroma98}} I agree with all of your points. My interpretation of the information contained within the Challenges subheading is that it refers to current challenges. I would prefer to either get input from the individual who originally contributed the content or to obtain consensus from other editors before modifying. —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:47, 11 November 2023 (EST)
::::{{Reply to |AWilliamson}} OK. We're on the same page. I agree with both of your preferences. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 21:04, 11 November 2023 (EST)
::::{{Reply to |AWilliamson}} I agree that "Future Trends" and "Challenges" could be separated into two different subtopics. After reviewing the edit history, I believe Dr. Lucas is the one who created this heading, and he has indicated that any of the initial outline can be changed or removed. To me, it seems like almost everything currently in this section falls under the "Challenges" category, so that could be its own section. Then the "Future Trends" can be further developed. --[[User:Emmakd|Emma D.]] ([[User talk:Emmakd|talk]]) 15:29, 12 November 2023 (EST)

Under Ethical Considerations, I removed the second person pronouns with a more neutral one. Though the paragraph fits with the topic, writing in the second person is not standard practice for Wikipedia/Litwiki. Litwiki is the intellectual property of Dr. Gerald R. Lucas, PhD, and the rules and format of Wikipedia apply to Litwiki. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 15:07, 11 November 2023 (EST)

== Include external links section? ==

There are a few external (non-wikipedia) links in the article. Should we remove/replace the external links or create an External Links section? According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External%20links Wikipedia:External links]: "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:50, 10 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|AWilliamson}} I think we should as this follows the Wikipedia guidelines as well as Dr. Lucas' earlier advice. --[[User:Apjones428|Apjones428]] ([[User talk:Apjones428|talk]]) 12:47, 13 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|AWilliamson |Apjones428}} I agree that external links should be placed in an External links section. However, I question if the ones currently linked are needed external links. Most of the links are to Wikipedia pages. Instead, do these need to be potential LitWiki pages and the links formatted similarly to how one would link a page internally in Wikipedia, even if those pages do not exist? If so, I think the other three external links, PowerPoint, Google Slides, and Business Insider, should follow the same format. Or should any of the current external links inside the body of the article be links at all? My understanding of External links is that they should be reserved for further topic information. -- ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 16:03, 14 November 2023 (EST)

:::{{Reply to|Kamyers}} I don't believe the links are needed for the most part. The links do not lead to much more information. --([[User talk:Kynndra Watson|talk]]) Kynndra Watson 19:14, 14 November 2023 (EST)

:::{{Reply to|Kamyers}} My thinking was that we treat LitWiki as if it is Wikipedia. So the links to Wikipedia would be considered internal if this is the case. I think what information constitutes "further topic information" is up to us as the editors and we just need to come to a consensus on the matter and then edit accordingly. —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 22:09, 14 November 2023 (EST)

==Heading Structure==
There are inconsistencies with the subheading structure on the page. I propose we establish the heading structure as follows: Heading 1 (for section titles), Subheading 1 (H2 for subsections within the main section), and Subheading 2 (H3 for items that need to be defined). No italics in subheadings.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 14:11, 11 November 2023 (EST)
:Debbie, I agree. Your suggestion makes sense, as there should be consistency throughout. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 19:58, 11 November 2023 (EST)

: {{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} I support your proposal. — [[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:56, 11 November 2023 (EST)

I edited the headings and subheadings. Thanks for your input everyone--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 18:52, 12 November 2023 (EST)

: {{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} Thanks for doing this. As I was looking at some of the headings, it seems the H2 headings blend in with the text due to size similarity of the paragraphs below. I think these headings would benefit from being bold to help them stand out more. --[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 11:40, 14 November 2023 (EST)
I went ahead and changed these H2 headings to bold for viewability purposes. --[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 12:49, 17 November 2023 (EST)
: {{Reply to|Natecole54}} Bolding headings does nothing and should be avoided. See [[w:MOS:BOLD|MOS:BOLD]]. Thanks. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 17:19, 17 November 2023 (EST)

== Collaboration and Version Control ==

I think this section can be added to the digital documentation section.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 18:51, 12 November 2023 (EST)
:I moved version control to the digital documentation section. It was already listed there as a characteristic. I left collaboration as its own section. I'm not positive it falls under the characteristics of a digital document. I think it may be fine to leave that one on its own, but also down to do whatever the group thinks is best for it. [[User:Bryanna.kerbuski|Bryanna.kerbuski]] ([[User talk:Bryanna.kerbuski|talk]]) 17:53, 13 November 2023 (EST)

I moved the collaboration under the section for digital documentation, and I renamed the subheading "Remote Collaboration" because that is a characteristic of digital documents, but now that I've done it, I wonder if I should have just left it alone. Perhaps, I just need to edit the content under the heading. [[User:Kleinberger|Kleinberger]] ([[User talk:Kleinberger|talk]]) 06:09, 14 November 2023 (EST)

== Features of Technical Communication Section ==
When compared to the other sections of the talk page, this section seems a bit choppy. I'm thinking we can get a better intro paragraph and maybe either add longer paragraphs for each item, or combine some of the subheadings together. Any thoughts on this? --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda Austin]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 21:19, 12 November 2023 (EST)

I do think that longer paragraphs will make the section more thorough. Maybe sections like "clear" and "concise" could be combined? [[User: HRoney]]

:{{Reply to|HRoney}} Thank you for your feedback, I've gone ahead and combined those two sections along with adding more context to the remainder of each subheadings in the section. To all, please feel free to review and let me know of any questions or revision changes you'd think would work. [[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 14:04, 13 November 2023 (EST)

==Additional Sections==
What additional sections would we like to add to this article? I will be adding in more on multi-modality as well as more information to the SEO section of the page. Other thoughts? --[[User:Apjones428|Apjones428]] ([[User talk:Apjones428|talk]]) 12:47, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:I think adding in more on both multi-modality and SEO would be helpful. SEO is one that I am struggling with understanding. I think that it'd be nice to have more information about it on our wiki.[[User:Bryanna.kerbuski|Bryanna.kerbuski]] ([[User talk:Bryanna.kerbuski|talk]]) 17:53, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:: I agree we should add more info detailing SEO, but should we also go into more detail about the user centered design principles? We have mentioned it in a few spots but nothing really going into detail about its importance, especially in relation to SEO. I can organize my research and knock it out.[[User:Kynndra.watson]] 18:59, 14 November 2023 (EST)

::: I added the SEO section because of its importance to the user experience. Optimizing keywords and long-tail keywords should be right in a digital writer's wheelhouse. Feel free to add to this section! [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 10:17, 17 November 2023 (EST)

== Links to other Wikipedia articles ==

In the Wikipedia: Citing Sources guidelines, under the Wikidata section, it states, "Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source '''(just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources)'''. Bold font is mine. Five of the eight title, name, or word links go to another Wikipedia article. One of those articles states it doesn't exist. We should consider correcting these. [[User:RDrummond|Randy M. Drummond]] ([[User talk:RDrummond|talk]]) 13:00, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|RDrummond}} I think you are referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing%20sources Wikipedia:Citing sources] but possibly discussing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual%20of%20Style/Linking Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking]. Can you offer any clarification? —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 22:29, 14 November 2023 (EST)

@AWilliamson: I couldn’t find it specifically in the Style/Linking section, it even talks about linking to sister articles, but the Citing Sources has what I quoted. The article I used in Wiki Assignment 4, Wiki NPOV, the writer cited numerous statements and studies but linked them to Wiki pages about the government agency or corporation that said nothing about what he was putting in his article. That made me start to check links to other Wiki articles. [[User:RDrummond|Randy M. Drummond]] ([[User talk:RDrummond|talk]]) 09:07, 17 November 2023 (EST)

== Article Organization ==

I've been taking a look at the overall structure of the article, and I wonder if we might consider revising the organization. It just seems like there's a bit too much back and forth between Technical Writing topics and Digital Writing topics. Also, I wonder if the Historical Context should come before the Features section. Something about the overall structure just feels "off" to me. [[User:Kleinberger|Kleinberger]] ([[User talk:Kleinberger|talk]]) 06:23, 14 November 2023 (EST)

:{{reply to|Kleinberger}}I think the organization could be fine-tuned so it flows naturally. I agree the Historical Context should come before the features section. If we were to mimic the Technical Writing Wiki page, it has the overview and then history. Since there are technical writing topics and digital writing topics, we could add more context in the digital technologies and technical writing section that could merge these two concepts together to transition into topics on digital writing. The article should transition from what Technical Writing was to what it is now in the Digital Age. [[User:Jasteverson|Jasteverson]] ([[User talk:Jasteverson|talk]]) 18:40, 14 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|Kleinberger}}::{{Reply to|Jasteverson}} I added a section "Outline for Article Organization" at the end of the discussion page with some ideas on an updated outline if you'd like to review. Thank you! --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 22:17, 25 November 2023 (EST)

== Making it Flow ==

I agree with several of the other posts about overall organization and the flow of the article. I feel the article itself is good and has a lot of great content, I am just not sure about how it is currently laid out. For example, the intro is an "Overview of Technical Communication." In that section are types, aims and characteristics of technical communication. However, the next section is "Features of Technical Communication." All of these are related and should be included in one section if they all focus on various aspects of technical communication. There also seems to be a random order of the headings. The last heading on future trends is good, but right above that is pedagogical approaches. I think that should be earlier in the article. Also, there is a heading for examples of digital documents under a heading on digital documents which includes lots of subheadings. Again, I think content is great. I just think we could clean it up a bit.

Should We combine the personas section with the User Center Design/User Experience section?--[[User:Elaine Streeter|Elaine Streeter]] ([[User talk:Elaine Streeter|talk]]) 18:54, 24 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|Elaine Streeter}} I added a section "Outline for Article Organization" at the end of the discussion page with some ideas on an updated outline if you'd like to review. Thank you!--[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 22:16, 25 November 2023 (EST)

==Expansion Needed==

While reviewing the article, there are specific sections without enough detail that need to be expanded. These three sections are Overview-Types of Technical Communication, Ethical Considerations-The Public, and Future Trends and Challenges-Future Trends. Also is it okay to have a single subsection under Appropriateness? Do we need or have planned to have additional subsections or should we eliminate the subheading "Audience-specific"?--[[User:TBara]]([[User talk:TBara|talk]]) 14:14, 14 November 2023 (EST)

== Technical Documents ==

I broke out the Technical Documents subsection and made it its own category. The Wikipedia article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_writing technical writing] lists out the types of technical documents. I think it's a great way to expand on the piece. Feel free to add definitions or more subcategories. --[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 10:06, 20 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}}Thank you for adding this list. I'm working on the definitions too. I also added an entry for Documentation and moved "Instructions and Procedures" under it so all forms of documentation are under one entry. I think this makes sense, but see what you think. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 15:09, 20 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} I think it makes perfect sense! I just threw categories in to get it started and have already changed them around as I research. I am thinking of adding a separate "tools" section to mimic what is on the Wikipedia entry. Thoughts?

::{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}}I think adding "tools" is a good idea, but I wonder if it would be good to have them under the current "Digital Technologies and Technical Writing" section? The list would help to expand this section and would reinforce the digital connection. Just a thought.--[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 10:04, 21 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}}:{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} I added a section "Outline for Article Organization" at the end of the discussion page with some ideas on an updated outline if you'd like to review. Thank you! --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 22:14, 25 November 2023 (EST)

== Digital Technologies and Technical Writing ==

I reformatted this section to flesh it out. I renamed it "Digital Technologies Tools" to capture tools commonly used by technical writers as seen on Wikipedia's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_writing Technical Writing] entry. I added a few categories to get it started. Feel free to edit and add more categories as needed.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 08:05, 24 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} I added in information to the Image Processing Software and Text Editor sections. I'm hoping that was the route you were wanting to go with in those sections. I also read over the rest of the Digital Technologies Tools sections and fixed some things, like capitalization and some rewriting for clarity and some more neutral tones. Please let me know if I need to make any changes to my additions, thank you! --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 21:31, 25 November 2023 (EST)

==User Experience==

Everything is looking great! Wanted to give everyone a heads up that I am currently working on expanding the user experience section and will be adding Information Architecture, Responsiveness, and Usability to it. I should be adding those up over the next few days. Let me know if you see anywhere else here that needs to be expounded on. Thanks! --[[User:Kamyers|Kamyers]] ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 09:43, 24 November 2023 (EST)

== Outline for Article Organization ==

Hi, everyone. I've been thinking of how the article is outlined, and this may be a good idea to start with.
There are also some notes I've made included in the outline:

1. Overview
2. Historical Context
3. Features of Technical Communication
4. Personas in Digital Writing
5. Rhetorical Strategies in the Digital Age
6. Digital Technologies Tools
7. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
8. Technical Documents
(This section seems overwhelming. Could we combine sections to create longer paragraphs?)
9. Digital Documentation
(There is a long list of sections here that have short sentences. Could some of the sections be combined to create paragraphs? We could have the Technical Documents and Digital Documentation mirror each other in how they're formatted.)
10. Examples of Digital Documents
(Could this become a section in the Digital Documentation section above?)
11. User Experience
(I believe someone is editing this section?)
12. Ethical Considerations
13. Pedagogical Approaches
14. Future Trends and Challenges
15. References

Once we agree on the article's flow, we can edit each section with the same style ideals. Thoughts or recommendations?

:{{Reply to|Amanda.Austin1}} I am currently working on User Experience. {{Reply to|Elaine Streeter}} mentioned adding the personas into this section. I think it could be possibly added to User Research, but I might find a better place for it in UX. I'm not sure it needs it's own section, but I could be overruled. Let me know, and I'll get it added in. For the smaller short sentence sections in Digital Documentation, I agree that these could be combined. I also think Examples of Digital Documents could go into Digital Documents. --[[User:Kamyers|Kamyers]] ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 10:49, 26 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Amanda.Austin1}} I support your organization proposal. RE: the long list of definitions and short sentences. I don't mind that format because it mirrors what's on Wikipedia, Dr. Lucas' text, and how the information is presented in the technical communication texts. It aids in keeping the info scannable. But I do agree to keep the Technical Documents and Digital Documentation sections similar in format.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 10:36, 27 November 2023 (EST)
::{{Reply to|Amanda.Austin1}}I was about to reply to this when I saw you have already reorganized, which is great. I particularly think it was important to move "Historical Context" up.--[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Kamyers}} :{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} Hi everyone, I went ahead and rearranged the outline for better flow. I also left the Digital Documentation section like you recommended Debbie. I think now that the layout is good, we can go in and copy edit the article for any errors or clarity. --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 16:12, 27 November 2023 (EST)

I have also been thinking about the article's organization. I think a lot of the sections can be combined so it's not so overwhelming. Below is my proposal, which would condense everything into 6 major sections instead of 13. I have not removed anything at all, merely restructured in a way that makes more sense (to me at least). I am happy to reformat this way and preserve everyone's text, but would love some feedback before making a major change. [[User:Emmakd|Emmakd]] Emma D. 17:41, 28 November 2023 (EST)
:{{Reply to|Emmakd}} I don't mind the structure being condensed into 6 sections instead of 13. Just be mindful of the citation template code in the body that supports the shortened footnote code. --[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 05:48, 29 November 2023 (EST)

I went ahead and reorganized the sections. It was mostly just moving the several sections about digital writing into subsections underneath a single "Strategies for Digital Writing" section. I think this has messed with the formatting of some of the subheadings, I'll try to go back through and make sure everything is uniform, but it seems there are multiple people editing right now, so I'll wait until later as to not interfere. --Emma D. 18:55, 29 November 2023 (EST)

== Late to the party ==

First of all - I want to apologize to the whole class for not jumping in sooner, but this has been a rough semester. Secondly, please let me know where I can help. I will be adding my section or building on one of the others this week, and I see a couple of sections that can be edited for conciseness and tightened up a bit. My life is still a bit of a trainwreck since my mother's death - but I'm happy to help where needed.--[[User:Valerie Emerick|Valerie Emerick]] ([[User talk:Valerie Emerick|talk]]) 21:23, 26 November 2023 (EST)

I am also late to party, Valerie. I am happy to help out wherever, but I was thinking about expanding the UDC section to include IA and maybe reach into remediation in the Digital Documents section. Also happy to proofread wherever. --[[User:Ebyington3|Ebyington3]] ([[User talk:Ebyington3|talk]]) 21:21, 28 November 2023 (EST)

== Citations in lead section ==

Please ignore. I know now. Thanks. @Natecole54 You removed a citation yesterday evening from the lead section stating citations should only be in the body of the article. I don't remember reading that. I was trying to add citations because the lead was generated with ChatGPT and has no citations. Where can I find that?

== Images ==

Hey everyone! I was looking over the page and realized that the article is very long with no pictures or examples. If it pleases the group, I can go through and add pictorial examples from our textbooks and readings to go along with what we are talking about in certain sections and then add the ref to it? [[User:Ebyington3|Ebyington3]] ([[User talk:Ebyington3|talk]]) 06:42, 29 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|Ebyington3}} That is a wonderful idea. --[[User:APitts]]

:{{Reply to|Elbyington3}} Please let me know if you need anything help with adding picture. I'm going through and expanding as needed on subjects and organization. --[[User:JCaruso]] ([[User talk:JCaruso|talk]]) 09:39, 29 November 2023 (EST)

== Multimodality ==

I know this topic is covered under the characteristics topic; however, I feel like this is essential to user experience as well. Unless I'm missing something, I plan to add and expand this approach/theory under user-experience referring to our texts as well and examples, etc.

Please let me know if you disagree or think this is a bad idea. --[[User:JCaruso]] ([[User talk:JCaruso|talk]]) 10:30, 29 November 2023 (EST)

Talk:Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-11-25T21:26:49Z

Mroma98: /* Citation question */

==Layout and Lead==
Just to get this thing going, I have created the article, developed a rudimentary layout, and added a lead written by ChatGTP. '''All of this may be kept or changed'''. I would certainly revise or rewrite the lead. Questions, ideas, discussion, and comments about the project should be posted here. I'm looking forward to seeing what you all come up with this semester. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 09:38, 3 October 2023 (EDT)

==Citation question==
I am citing a later edition of a source that is cited elsewhere on the page. (Markel, Mike, and Selber, Stuart. (2021). Technical Communication (13th ed). This version has a second author. Should these entries be combined somehow?
:{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} Yes. If you’re using the updated version, update the earlier source. Great question, but don’t forget to sign your talk posts. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 14:35, 2 November 2023 (EDT)

::{{Reply to|Admin}}Thank you. I have linked the first citation in the article (paragraph 1) to my Markel use under "Rhetorical Strategies." {{Reply to|mroma98}} and {{Reply to|RDrummond}}, in looking at the article history, it seems one of you may have added the Markel references under Ethical Considerations. I did not update those references yet because the oldest copyright date on my source is 2012, and I was also unsure of the page numbers. If you review the citation I added, and it is appropriate to reference, the shortened reference is <ref name="Markel">. Thanks. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 18:23, 13 November 2023 (EST)
:::{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} Thank you, Beth. I contributed to the Ethical Considerations section. My Markel source was from 2009, but the same information appears in later editions, so the 2012 reference should work, too. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 16:26, 25 November 2023 (EST)

==Shortened Footnotes==
I added the template to the project. All you need to do is add the code for your reference under Bibliography and then the SFN code under citations. I made a quick, visual [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QGEr_RhDMKZvPqvncmDR9eoHRmOLeFkXpzp9nzFb-Sg/edit?usp=sharing step-by-step] that show you how to pull the [https://grlucas.net/grl/April%2015,%202019 template] and paste the code.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 14:11, 11 November 2023 (EST)
:Nice work! Thanks [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 09:28, 13 November 2023 (EST)

I just wanted to let everyone know that I worked on cleaning up the citations and making them all look like shortened footnotes per Dr. Lucas's direction. If there was a citation that looked like it belonged in the bibliography, I added it there. Each one of the citations links to the bibliography.--[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 00:27, 20 November 2023
:{{reply to|Natecole54}} Nice work! I was slowly working my way through the citations to convert them to SNF format, and I am glad to see that they are all done.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 08:26, 20 November 2023 (EST)
::{{reply to|Natecole54}}{{reply to|Debbiewolfe}}Thanks to both of you for taking this on! --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 11:02, 20 November 2023 (EST)
:{{reply to|Debbiewolfe}}{{reply to|Beth Kennedy}}You're welcome. I will monitor this section and make sure any new additions get formatted correctly.

== References question ==

Should References be the heading, followed by Bibliography as a subheading? Would this only apply if we are using Notes, Citations, and a Bibliography?--[[User:CEToledo|CEToledo]] ([[User talk:CEToledo|talk]]) 19:14, 4 November 2023 (EDT)
: {{Reply to|CEToledo}} You can do whatever seems logical for this. Check out [[w:The Man Who Studied Yoga|The Man Who Studied Yoga]] to see a way to approach a references section. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 07:27, 6 November 2023 (EST)

--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 12:50, 6 November 2023 (EST)== Shortened footnote code ==
I am having trouble understanding where the placement of the works cited and the shortened footnote code should be. I sent an inquiry email to Dr. Lucas. [[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 14:41, 5 November 2023 (EST)
:{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} I would put references at the bottom, in a bibliography section. Then you can use the shortened footnotes in the body. This is an easier approach for everyone editing, as they can easily consult the bibliography to see if a reference has been used and entered. —07:30, 6 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} and {{Reply to|CEToledo}} It seems we have two forms of citation happening now: the original one and the revised format that Debbie created. (Thanks Debbie and thanks for the tutorial (above), very helpful!). I think the bibliography with citations using shortened footnotes is a good approach, and my vote would be to transition to this. But it would be good to have consensus. Is everyone ok with this approach? --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 19:07, 13 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to |Beth Kennedy}} I vote SFN form. --[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 05:04, 14 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to |Beth Kennedy}} My vote is for the bibliography with citations using shortened footnotes. I think that will present a clean and readable format, since we are referencing similar marterial. --[[User:Kamyers|Kamyers]] ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 15:06, 14 November 2023 (EST)

Do I need to have the citation section? I see that my shortened footnotes are displaying in the reference section.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 15:48, 6 November 2023 (EST)

For the User Experience section, I reference citation 23. Do I need to add the citation to each entry there since they all come from the same source or will one citation work?--[[User:Elaine Streeter|Elaine Streeter]] ([[User talk:Elaine Streeter|talk]]) 19:06, 16 November 2023 (EST)

I'm struggling with my references and citations. It currently displays an error message. I updated the section "user guides" and tried to enter in my template and this is the error message I received. What am I doing wrong? --[[User:APitts]]
:::{{Reply to|APitts}}The shortened footnotes just don't need to be enclosed with the "ref" parameters. I removed them, and it's good to go. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 12:47, 22 November 2023 (EST)

== Paragraph Blocks ==

I can't believe how well and quickly this is coming along. At any rate, on to my dispute...are we adhering to any particular standard in terms of the size of paragraph blocks? Too long and it reduces the likelihood of it being read, too brief (a single sentence) and the topic/subtopic of the contribution seems too unnecessary to even mention. -- [[User:CBrown]]

:I separated the Digital Document and User Experience sections. I think paragraph blocks should have around three to four sentences max. More than that, we can create a new subheading.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 06:41, 8 November 2023 (EST)

::The Ethical Considerations section seems to run together. Can it be separated into smaller sections with the primary categories as headings: "Employer," "Public," and "Environment?" --[[User:APitts]]

:::@APitts I agree that it would work better to separate into smaller sections. It would make them appear neater and more organized. -- [[User: HRoney]]

::::Can we agree then that there are no more additions to the "Ethical Considerations" section? [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 09:50, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:::::Edits have been made to separate the Ethical Considerations portion into categories. Can someone look over my work or make any edits as you see fit? -- [[User: APitts]]

:::::{{Reply to |APitts}} I looked over your work and it looks good to me! There were a couple of grammatical errors that I edited. -- [[User: HRoney]]

::::::{{Reply to |CBrown}} I agree that a single sentence is too brief for a topic/subtopic but I don't think that means all sections like that are "too unnecessary to even mention". I think that for single sentences we need to review that area to determine if we need to add further details. --[[User:TBara]]([[User talk:TBara|talk]]) 13:53, 14 November 2023 (EST)

:::::::{{Reply to |TBara}} I am fairly certain that is the way the word "seem" works. -- [[User:CBrown]]

Added indents to keep the section readable, per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Indentation wikipedia indentation] philosophy. [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 10:48, 14 November 2023 (EST)

== Topics vs. Subtopics ==

Why are future trends and challenges separate subtopics under the future trends and challenges topic? Should there not be an overview of future trends and challenges followed by subtopics of examples of future trends and challenges, e.g. artificial intelligence. -- [[User:CBrown]]

:I am in favor of this idea/change if others agree. --[[User:Elaine Streeter|Elaine Streeter]] ([[User talk:Elaine Streeter|talk]]) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|CBrown}} The problem here is that the heading Future Trends and Challenges has room for interpretation. I think the section should just be titled Future Trends. I also think an overview of future trends could be appropriate provided information from its subheadings is not unnecessarily repeated. The material under the Challenges subheading could be relocated to another heading but I would like to hear other opinions on this proposal. —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:13, 10 November 2023 (EST)
::{{Reply to |AWilliamson}} While Challenges could be a standalone heading, are we talking current or future challenges? If current, then I believe it would be best as a standalone heading. If future, then it would fit in the current format. If both, then standalone. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 20:04, 11 November 2023 (EST)

:::{{Reply to |Mroma98}} I agree with all of your points. My interpretation of the information contained within the Challenges subheading is that it refers to current challenges. I would prefer to either get input from the individual who originally contributed the content or to obtain consensus from other editors before modifying. —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:47, 11 November 2023 (EST)
::::{{Reply to |AWilliamson}} OK. We're on the same page. I agree with both of your preferences. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 21:04, 11 November 2023 (EST)
::::{{Reply to |AWilliamson}} I agree that "Future Trends" and "Challenges" could be separated into two different subtopics. After reviewing the edit history, I believe Dr. Lucas is the one who created this heading, and he has indicated that any of the initial outline can be changed or removed. To me, it seems like almost everything currently in this section falls under the "Challenges" category, so that could be its own section. Then the "Future Trends" can be further developed. --[[User:Emmakd|Emma D.]] ([[User talk:Emmakd|talk]]) 15:29, 12 November 2023 (EST)

Under Ethical Considerations, I removed the second person pronouns with a more neutral one. Though the paragraph fits with the topic, writing in the second person is not standard practice for Wikipedia/Litwiki. Litwiki is the intellectual property of Dr. Gerald R. Lucas, PhD, and the rules and format of Wikipedia apply to Litwiki. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 15:07, 11 November 2023 (EST)

== Include external links section? ==

There are a few external (non-wikipedia) links in the article. Should we remove/replace the external links or create an External Links section? According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External%20links Wikipedia:External links]: "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:50, 10 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|AWilliamson}} I think we should as this follows the Wikipedia guidelines as well as Dr. Lucas' earlier advice. --[[User:Apjones428|Apjones428]] ([[User talk:Apjones428|talk]]) 12:47, 13 November 2023 (EST)

::{{Reply to|AWilliamson |Apjones428}} I agree that external links should be placed in an External links section. However, I question if the ones currently linked are needed external links. Most of the links are to Wikipedia pages. Instead, do these need to be potential LitWiki pages and the links formatted similarly to how one would link a page internally in Wikipedia, even if those pages do not exist? If so, I think the other three external links, PowerPoint, Google Slides, and Business Insider, should follow the same format. Or should any of the current external links inside the body of the article be links at all? My understanding of External links is that they should be reserved for further topic information. -- ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 16:03, 14 November 2023 (EST)

:::{{Reply to|Kamyers}} I don't believe the links are needed for the most part. The links do not lead to much more information. --([[User talk:Kynndra Watson|talk]]) Kynndra Watson 19:14, 14 November 2023 (EST)

:::{{Reply to|Kamyers}} My thinking was that we treat LitWiki as if it is Wikipedia. So the links to Wikipedia would be considered internal if this is the case. I think what information constitutes "further topic information" is up to us as the editors and we just need to come to a consensus on the matter and then edit accordingly. —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 22:09, 14 November 2023 (EST)

==Heading Structure==
There are inconsistencies with the subheading structure on the page. I propose we establish the heading structure as follows: Heading 1 (for section titles), Subheading 1 (H2 for subsections within the main section), and Subheading 2 (H3 for items that need to be defined). No italics in subheadings.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 14:11, 11 November 2023 (EST)
:Debbie, I agree. Your suggestion makes sense, as there should be consistency throughout. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 19:58, 11 November 2023 (EST)

: {{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} I support your proposal. — [[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 20:56, 11 November 2023 (EST)

I edited the headings and subheadings. Thanks for your input everyone--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 18:52, 12 November 2023 (EST)

: {{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} Thanks for doing this. As I was looking at some of the headings, it seems the H2 headings blend in with the text due to size similarity of the paragraphs below. I think these headings would benefit from being bold to help them stand out more. --[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 11:40, 14 November 2023 (EST)
I went ahead and changed these H2 headings to bold for viewability purposes. --[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 12:49, 17 November 2023 (EST)
: {{Reply to|Natecole54}} Bolding headings does nothing and should be avoided. See [[w:MOS:BOLD|MOS:BOLD]]. Thanks. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 17:19, 17 November 2023 (EST)

== Collaboration and Version Control ==

I think this section can be added to the digital documentation section.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 18:51, 12 November 2023 (EST)
:I moved version control to the digital documentation section. It was already listed there as a characteristic. I left collaboration as its own section. I'm not positive it falls under the characteristics of a digital document. I think it may be fine to leave that one on its own, but also down to do whatever the group thinks is best for it. [[User:Bryanna.kerbuski|Bryanna.kerbuski]] ([[User talk:Bryanna.kerbuski|talk]]) 17:53, 13 November 2023 (EST)

I moved the collaboration under the section for digital documentation, and I renamed the subheading "Remote Collaboration" because that is a characteristic of digital documents, but now that I've done it, I wonder if I should have just left it alone. Perhaps, I just need to edit the content under the heading. [[User:Kleinberger|Kleinberger]] ([[User talk:Kleinberger|talk]]) 06:09, 14 November 2023 (EST)

== Features of Technical Communication Section ==
When compared to the other sections of the talk page, this section seems a bit choppy. I'm thinking we can get a better intro paragraph and maybe either add longer paragraphs for each item, or combine some of the subheadings together. Any thoughts on this? --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda Austin]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 21:19, 12 November 2023 (EST)

I do think that longer paragraphs will make the section more thorough. Maybe sections like "clear" and "concise" could be combined? [[User: HRoney]]

:{{Reply to|HRoney}} Thank you for your feedback, I've gone ahead and combined those two sections along with adding more context to the remainder of each subheadings in the section. To all, please feel free to review and let me know of any questions or revision changes you'd think would work. [[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 14:04, 13 November 2023 (EST)

==Additional Sections==
What additional sections would we like to add to this article? I will be adding in more on multi-modality as well as more information to the SEO section of the page. Other thoughts? --[[User:Apjones428|Apjones428]] ([[User talk:Apjones428|talk]]) 12:47, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:I think adding in more on both multi-modality and SEO would be helpful. SEO is one that I am struggling with understanding. I think that it'd be nice to have more information about it on our wiki.[[User:Bryanna.kerbuski|Bryanna.kerbuski]] ([[User talk:Bryanna.kerbuski|talk]]) 17:53, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:: I agree we should add more info detailing SEO, but should we also go into more detail about the user centered design principles? We have mentioned it in a few spots but nothing really going into detail about its importance, especially in relation to SEO. I can organize my research and knock it out.[[User:Kynndra.watson]] 18:59, 14 November 2023 (EST)

::: I added the SEO section because of its importance to the user experience. Optimizing keywords and long-tail keywords should be right in a digital writer's wheelhouse. Feel free to add to this section! [[User:Cggreen|Cggreen]] ([[User talk:Cggreen|talk]]) 10:17, 17 November 2023 (EST)

== Links to other Wikipedia articles ==

In the Wikipedia: Citing Sources guidelines, under the Wikidata section, it states, "Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source '''(just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources)'''. Bold font is mine. Five of the eight title, name, or word links go to another Wikipedia article. One of those articles states it doesn't exist. We should consider correcting these. [[User:RDrummond|Randy M. Drummond]] ([[User talk:RDrummond|talk]]) 13:00, 13 November 2023 (EST)

:{{Reply to|RDrummond}} I think you are referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing%20sources Wikipedia:Citing sources] but possibly discussing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual%20of%20Style/Linking Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking]. Can you offer any clarification? —[[User:AWilliamson|AWilliamson]] ([[User talk:AWilliamson|talk]]) 22:29, 14 November 2023 (EST)

@AWilliamson: I couldn’t find it specifically in the Style/Linking section, it even talks about linking to sister articles, but the Citing Sources has what I quoted. The article I used in Wiki Assignment 4, Wiki NPOV, the writer cited numerous statements and studies but linked them to Wiki pages about the government agency or corporation that said nothing about what he was putting in his article. That made me start to check links to other Wiki articles. [[User:RDrummond|Randy M. Drummond]] ([[User talk:RDrummond|talk]]) 09:07, 17 November 2023 (EST)

== Article Organization ==

I've been taking a look at the overall structure of the article, and I wonder if we might consider revising the organization. It just seems like there's a bit too much back and forth between Technical Writing topics and Digital Writing topics. Also, I wonder if the Historical Context should come before the Features section. Something about the overall structure just feels "off" to me. [[User:Kleinberger|Kleinberger]] ([[User talk:Kleinberger|talk]]) 06:23, 14 November 2023 (EST)
:{{reply to|Kleinberger}}I think the organization could be fine-tuned so it flows naturally. I agree the Historical Context should come before the features section. If we were to mimic the Technical Writing Wiki page, it has the overview and then history. Since there are technical writing topics and digital writing topics, we could add more context in the digital technologies and technical writing section that could merge these two concepts together to transition into topics on digital writing. The article should transition from what Technical Writing was to what it is now in the Digital Age. [[User:Jasteverson|Jasteverson]] ([[User talk:Jasteverson|talk]]) 18:40, 14 November 2023 (EST)

== Making it Flow ==

I agree with several of the other posts about overall organization and the flow of the article. I feel the article itself is good and has a lot of great content, I am just not sure about how it is currently laid out. For example, the intro is an "Overview of Technical Communication." In that section are types, aims and characteristics of technical communication. However, the next section is "Features of Technical Communication." All of these are related and should be included in one section if they all focus on various aspects of technical communication. There also seems to be a random order of the headings. The last heading on future trends is good, but right above that is pedagogical approaches. I think that should be earlier in the article. Also, there is a heading for examples of digital documents under a heading on digital documents which includes lots of subheadings. Again, I think content is great. I just think we could clean it up a bit.

Should We combine the personas section with the User Center Design/User Experience section?--[[User:Elaine Streeter|Elaine Streeter]] ([[User talk:Elaine Streeter|talk]]) 18:54, 24 November 2023 (EST)

==Expansion Needed==

While reviewing the article, there are specific sections without enough detail that need to be expanded. These three sections are Overview-Types of Technical Communication, Ethical Considerations-The Public, and Future Trends and Challenges-Future Trends. Also is it okay to have a single subsection under Appropriateness? Do we need or have planned to have additional subsections or should we eliminate the subheading "Audience-specific"?--[[User:TBara]]([[User talk:TBara|talk]]) 14:14, 14 November 2023 (EST)

== Technical Documents ==

I broke out the Technical Documents subsection and made it its own category. The Wikipedia article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_writing technical writing] lists out the types of technical documents. I think it's a great way to expand on the piece. Feel free to add definitions or more subcategories. --[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 10:06, 20 November 2023 (EST)
:{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}}Thank you for adding this list. I'm working on the definitions too. I also added an entry for Documentation and moved "Instructions and Procedures" under it so all forms of documentation are under one entry. I think this makes sense, but see what you think. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 15:09, 20 November 2023 (EST)
:{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} I think it makes perfect sense! I just threw categories in to get it started and have already changed them around as I research. I am thinking of adding a separate "tools" section to mimic what is on the Wikipedia entry. Thoughts?
::{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}}I think adding "tools" is a good idea, but I wonder if it would be good to have them under the current "Digital Technologies and Technical Writing" section? The list would help to expand this section and would reinforce the digital connection. Just a thought.--[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 10:04, 21 November 2023 (EST)

== Digital Technologies and Technical Writing ==

I reformatted this section to flesh it out. I renamed it "Digital Technologies Tools" to capture tools commonly used by technical writers as seen on Wikipedia's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_writing Technical Writing] entry. I added a few categories to get it started. Feel free to edit and add more categories as needed.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 08:05, 24 November 2023 (EST)

==User Experience==

Everything is looking great! Wanted to give everyone a heads up that I am currently working on expanding the user experience section and will be adding Information Architecture, Responsiveness, and Usability to it. I should be adding those up over the next few days. Let me know if you see anywhere else here that needs to be expounded on. Thanks! --[[User:Kamyers|Kamyers]] ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 09:43, 24 November 2023 (EST)

Talk:Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-11-12T02:04:53Z

Mroma98: /* Topics vs. Subtopics */ Failed to add signature and timestamp in most recent response to user: AWilliamson

Talk:Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-11-12T02:03:22Z

Mroma98: /* Topics vs. Subtopics */

Talk:Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-11-12T01:13:17Z

Mroma98: /* Topics vs. Subtopics */ Corrected placement of comment

Talk:Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-11-12T01:04:06Z

Mroma98: /* Topics vs. Subtopics */

Talk:Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-11-12T00:58:39Z

Mroma98: /* Heading Structure */

Talk:Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-11-11T20:07:05Z

Mroma98:

Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-11-11T19:55:32Z

Mroma98: /* Ethical Considerations */ Removed the second person pronouns and replaced with a neutral point of view

'''Technical Writing in the Digital Age''' represents the dynamic and evolving discipline of creating written materials that convey complex information, instructions, and technical concepts in the context of contemporary digital technologies.<ref name=":3">Markel, Mike, and Selber, Stuart. (2021). ''Technical Communication'' (13th ed). Boston/New York. Bedford/St. Martin's: 182-186. [https://openlibrary.org/books/OL36001026M/Technical_Communication ISBN: 978-1-319-30769-1]</ref> Its purview encompasses the creation, dissemination, and management of technical documents and content within an expansive digital landscape.

Major considerations within this domain revolve around adapting traditional principles of rhetoric to digital platforms, ensuring effective communication in an era defined by rapid technological advancements. Key factors include integrating multimedia elements, user-centered design principles, and ethical considerations like accessibility and inclusivity.<ref name=":1">Carroll, Brian, (2010). ''Writing for Digital Media.'' New York: Routledge. </ref> This discipline also extends to collaborative writing processes and version control systems, acknowledging the necessity of teamwork in producing accurate and up-to-date technical documentation. The use of multi-modality and the interfacing of multiple media platforms and sources also plays a role in digital technical writing.<ref>{{cite web
| url = https://grlucas.net/grl/CompFAQ/Digital_Writing/Multimodal_Approach
| title = multimodal-approaches-in-technical-writing
| last = Lucas
| first= Gerald-R
| date= September 19, 2023
| website = Gerald-R-Lucas
| publisher = ghost
| access-date =October 30, 2023
| ref = harv
}}</ref> In essence, technical writing in the digital age encapsulates the art and science of conveying technical information in a manner that is comprehensible and accessible to diverse audiences in our digitally driven society. <ref>{{cite web
| url = https://grlucas.net/grl/CompFAQ/Technical_Writing
| title = Defining Technical Writing
| last = Lucas
| first= Gerald-R
| date= September 14, 2023
| website = Gerald-R-Lucas
| publisher = ghost
| access-date =November 7, 2023
| ref = harv
}}</ref>

==Overview==

===Types of Technical Communication===
Common types of technical communication include instructions, user guides, reports, proposals, memos, and procedures. <ref>{{cite book
| last1 = Lannon
| first1 = John
| last2 = Gurak
| first2 = Laura
| date = 2022
| title = Technical Communication
| edition = 15th
| publisher = Pearson Education Limited
| location = Essex, United Kingdom
| page = 30
| isbn = 1-292-36359-2
}}</ref>
<ref>Mussack, Brigitte. (2021). Introduction to Technical and Professional Communication: Technical Communication through a Social Justice Lens. Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial, 2021. n.p.</ref>

=== Aims of Technical Communication ===
As much as technical communication is a discipline in and of itself, it also exists within many other disciplines. Examples of technical communication communities can be found among such fields as varied as education, business, and science. Technical documentation within any domain typically embodies a similar aim: to help its audience act toward some sort of task or goal. <ref>Markel, M (2007). Technical communication, 8th ed. Boston: Beford/St. Martin’s, p. 5.</ref>

=== Characteristics of Technical Communication ===
Because technical communication is intended to guide an audience, it must be assembled in such a way that it is very easily understood. Successful technical documentation is accurate, logically sound, and appropriate. <ref>Perelman, Leslie, et al. The Mayfield Handbook of Technical and Scientific Writing. 1998, ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA73264379?l=en.</ref> Communication can be said to be accurate in two different understandings: accurate in description and accurate in content. Accurate descriptions are easy to understand. Accurate content provides for the intended result. Communication that is delivered logically is well-organized and clear and can be approached in a manner that will be coherent for most users. Technical information that is appropriate contains elements and steps that are suitable for the intended purpose and audience.

=== Features of Technical Communication ===
There are many features of technical communication which lead to it being accurate, sound, and appropriate. <ref>smirti. “Features of Technical Communication.” Management Note, 27 Feb. 2022, www.managementnote.com/features-of-technical-communication. Accessed 3 Nov. 2023.</ref>

==== '''Accuracy''' ====

===== ''Standards Compliant'' =====
Many technical fields have industry specific regulations and guidelines which are determined by governing bodies and that also have an impact on their technical communication.

===== ''Detailed'' =====
Accurate information that is delivered with precision and specificity is essential to providing communication that is unambiguous and free of inconsistencies.

===== ''Objective'' =====
Objective communication is presented in an unbiased and impartial manner and is free of personal opinions. It relies upon facts and evidence and avoids an overly emotional tone.

===== ''Concise'' =====
Good technical communication expresses meaning in a way that is straightforward and that avoids redundant words or excessive explanations. It is easy to both absorb and process.

===== ''Clear'' =====
Clear language is organized logically, is not unnecessarily involved, and is easily understood by the target audience. It will avoid needless jargon and complexity.

==== '''Soundness''' ====

===== ''Format'' =====
Technical documents should be formatted in a way that is consistent with the norms and standards of applicable professional fields. Additionally, formatting should adhere to guidelines which enhance usability.

===== ''Visuals'' =====
Technical communication utilizes visuals strategically to facilitate understanding of textual content. When presented properly, they can elucidate difficult concepts and make material accessible to a more diverse audience.

==== '''Appropriateness''' ====

===== ''Audience-specific'' =====
Where possible, technical communication should be customized to align with the knowledge and needs of its audience.

==Historical Context==
===Technical Writing Profession===
Joseph P. Chapline is considered to be one of the first technical writers, having written in 1949 the first ever user manual for the Binary Automatic Computer (BINAC), an early personal computer.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Malone |first=Ed |date=2008 |title=Joseph D. Chapline: Technical Communication's Mozart |url=https://web.mst.edu/~malonee/chapline.pdf |magazine=<i>IEEE Professional Communication Society Newsletter</i> |access-date=October 31, 2023 }}.</ref> In the 1950s, technical writing as a distinct profession began to take shape when technical writers founded formal organizations, academic programs, and conferences dedicated to the art. One of these key writing associations was the Association of Technical Writers and Editors, also formed in the 1950s. Several of these groups eventually merged, forming the Society of Technical Communication in 1960.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Edward |first1=Malone |date=November 2011 |title=The First Wave (1953–1961) of the Professionalization Movement in Technical Communication |url=https://www.stc.org/techcomm/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/08/november-2011-58-4.pdf |journal=Technical Communication |volume=58 |issue=4 |pages=285 - 306 |doi= |access-date=October 11, 2023}}</ref>

== Digital Technologies and Technical Writing==
With the rise of digital technology, technical writing has had to adapt to the needs of a digital era. The predominant impact of this revolution was that it made technical communication more accessible by increasing the breadth of its viewers. The world-wide web is public, and thus, it can be accessed by anyone with access to the internet.

Online word processors such as [https://www.google.com/docs/about/ Google Docs] and [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/sharepoint/collaboration SharePoint] allow documents to be easily disseminated. Comment capability allows audience members to interact with one another as well as with the document author. Hypertext permits online authors to link the works of various others to their personal websites and vice versa. In all, technical documentation posted online can grow a considerable audience over time. However, many aspects of effective technical writing, such as clarity, conciseness, completeness, and correctness, still need to be applied to technical writing created for digital interfaces. {{sfn|Carroll|2010|p=24}}

==Personas in Digital Writing==
Personas in the context of digital writing refer to semi-fictional characters that encapsulate the characteristics, behaviors, and needs of target audience segments.<ref>https://grlucas.net/grl/CompFAQ/Digital_Writing/Personas</ref>

==Rhetorical Strategies in the Digital Age==
Rhetoric is a communication strategy whose primary goal is to persuade an audience. It is grounded in three foundational concepts first defined by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. These concepts are ''logos'', which engages with the reader’s sense of logic or reason; ''pathos'', which appeals to the reader’s emotions; and ''ethos'', which addresses the audience’s values and the writer’s credibility. Within this framework, writers utilize specific techniques or devices to influence and engage readers. Examples include appealing to an audience’s sense of logic by using factual examples to support a point or evoking emotion through descriptive visual language. <ref>{{cite book |last=Gagich |first=Melanie |title=Writing Arguments in Stem |publisher=Digital Commons |date=n.d. |chapter=Rhetorical Appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos Defined |url=https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=oercoursematerials#page=44 |pages=34-37 }}</ref>

In today’s digital age, writers can use digital technologies as rhetorical devices to influence the reader. Electronic images and informational graphics can be incorporated into digital and online documents to illustrate or reinforce points made in the text.<ref name=":3" /> Hyperlinks can be used to provide additional information that supports the author's ideas. Nevertheless, the writer's basic task of informing and persuading an audience is the same in digital communication as in other forms of writing.<ref>{{cite book |last=Devos |first=Danielle |date=2010 |title=Because Digital Writing Matters: Improving Student Writing in Online and Multimedia Environments |location=San Francisco |publisher=Jossey-Bass |pages=105 |isbn=9780470892237 |url=https://openlibrary.org/books/OL34593323M/Because_Digital_Writing_Matters }}</ref>

Rhetorical analysis involves analyzing the demographics and habits of an intended audience. The information gathered allows writers to craft messages that appeal to the target audience. In the digital age, websites and social media platforms convey rhetorical messages. <ref>{{cite book
| last =Lawrence
| first =Dan
| date =2022
| title =Digital Writing
| location =Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
| publisher =Broadview Press
| page = 6-14
| isbn =9781770488229
}}</ref>

==Digital Documentation ==
Digital documentation is the conversion of physical documents into digital files, enabling easier access, retrieval, and sharing of information. It includes features like searchability, version control, and security measures to ensure data integrity and confidentiality.<ref name=":2">Lucas, Gerald (September 1, 2023). “Exploring the Dichotomy: A Comparative Analysis of Digital and Paper Documents.” Retrieved Oct 29, 2023. https://grlucas.net/grl/CompFAQ/Digital_Writing/Documents</ref>

===Characteristics of Digital Documents===

====Accessibility====
Website content should be designed in accordance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) to ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to access the same information as those without disabilities.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-intro/ |title=Introduction to Web Accessibility |author= |website=Web Accessibility Initiative |access-date=October 26, 2023 }}</ref> It is a legal requirement to include accessibility features in website design.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://wcag.com/legal/ |title=Accessibility and the Web |author= |website=WCAG |access-date=October 26, 2023 }}</ref> There are four different types of impairment that can affect how a user interacts and perceives digital documents: vision, mobility, auditory, and cognitive.{{sfn|Robbins|2018|p=42}}Digital documents will need to be optimized so that information can be accessed by hardware and software tools used by people with disabilities.{{sfn|Barr|2010|p=103-104}}

====Readability====
Digital documents rely on the "Seven Cs" of precise writing to be effective and increase readability. Forms of technical writing must have readability. Readability is a term used to determine whether the content has clarity, conciseness and courtesy.<ref>Zeleznik, J. M., Burnett, R. E., & Benson, P. J. (1999). ''Technical Writing : What It Is and How to Do It''. National Book Network. p. 207.</ref> The other four Cs are coherent, concrete, correct and complete.<ref>Last, Suzan (2019). ''Technical Writing Essentials.'' Victoria, B.C. University of Victoria. ISBN: 9781550586657 https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/technicalwriting/chapter/communicatingprecision/</ref>

====Scannability====
A document's scannability is determined by the ease in which it can be scanned to determine meaning. Readers often scan pages for words and phrases that align with their task or interests, as well as for trigger words that are deeply ingrained.{{sfn|Krug|2014|p=23}}The most effective web content is concise and simple to scan, making it easy for users to find the important information. Breaking up text into interesting, easy-to-read sections helps users quickly find information. {{sfn|Barr|2010|p=103}}

====Hyperlinking====
Hyperlinking is a quick and efficient method for directing readers to relevant information in digital documents, facilitating seamless navigation between sections, references, and external resources.{{sfn|Carroll|2010|p=79}}

== Examples of Digital Documents ==
In technical and professional writing, digital documentation takes various forms. These methods streamline the sharing of technical information, enhance collaboration, and ensure easy accessibility within professional settings, contributing to efficient communication and knowledge dissemination.

====Infographics====
Infographics, shared as digital documents, typically combine text, graphics, and illustrations to convey complex concepts or data in a concise and visually appealing format. Infographics are often used to simplify information, making it more accessible to a broader audience, and are found in presentations, reports, websites, and educational materials. <ref>{{cite book
| last1 = Lannon | first1 = John M.
| first2 = Laura J. | last2 = Gurak
| title = ''Technical Communication Fifteenth Edition''
| location = United States
| publisher = Pearson
| pages = 292–293
| date = 2020
| isbn = 978-0-13-520322-4}}</ref>

====Presentations====
Presentations created with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PowerPoint PowerPoint] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Slides Google Slides] are vital for professional communication and knowledge sharing. They condense complex information into visually appealing slides for effective presentations by using photos, videos, graphics, charts, and graphs.
<ref>{{cite book
| last1 = Parkinson | first1 = Mike
| title = A Trainer’s Guide to PowerPoint: Best Practices for Master Presenters
| location = United States
| publisher = Association for Talent Development
| pages = Chapter 4. PowerPoint Tips, Tricks, and Secrets
| date = 2018}}</ref>

== User Experience ==
User experience is how a product works from the perspective of the user. Digital documents can be created with efficient user experiences by focusing on user-centered design and designing the document with the user in mind. <ref> {{cite book | last = Garrett | first = Jesse James | title = The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web and Beyond | publisher = New Riders | edition = 2nd | date = 2011 | location = Berkeley, CA | page = 17}} </ref>

==Collaboration and Version Control==

===Collaboration===
One form of collaborative technical writing is a wiki, which is a "Web site developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content."<ref>{{cite web
| url = https://grlucas.net/grl/Writing_on_a_Wiki
| title = writing on a wiki
| last = Lucas
| first= Gerald
| date= May 18, 2021
| website = Gerald-R-Lucas
| publisher = MediaWiki
| access-date =October 31, 2023
| quote = Web site developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content.
| ref = harv
}}</ref>

In fact, one of the predominant elements of a wiki is that it is defined by being open source. And as such, it can be modified by anyone.

===Version Control===
Version control is a characteristic of digital documents that allows for the tracking of edits and revisions to digital documents. In collaborative writing, version control helps maintain the document with accountability and transparency.<ref name=":2" />

==Ethical Considerations ==
Technical communicators have ethical standards to which they must abide. The standards are divided into three primary categories. They are the employer, the public, and the environment.<ref name=":0">Markel, Mike. ''Technical Communication''. 9th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston, 2009. p.22-25.</ref>

Obligations to one's employer include competence and diligence, honesty and candor, confidentiality, and loyalty.<ref name=":0" /> The technical communicator must adhere to these obligations so that he/she does not harm the reputation or operation of the employer.

Organizations are obligated to treat customers fairly. Technical communicators must convey that the products or services an organization sells are safe and effective.<ref name=":0" />

Technical communicators may occasionally work for an organization with strict privacy policies that prohibit they from using the documents they create outside of the organization. It is important for ethical communicators to follow the privacy policy for their organization because unauthorized release of information could lead to consequences up to an including termination.<ref name=":4" />

Technical communicators have an obligation to the environment. This obligation includes alerting their supervisors, managers, and executive leadership to products or processes that are detrimental to the environment. Disposal of hazardous waste is far more costly than dumping it. Organizations could be tempted to skirt the legal procedures.<ref name=":0" /> One would hope that the penalty of 5 years and/or up to $50,000 per day for knowingly disposing of hazardous waste in a way contrary to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's regulations would be a sufficient deterrent. {{Citation |url=https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/criminal-provisions-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act-rcra
|title=Criminal Provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
|website=United States Environmental Protection Agency
|access-date=November 6, 2023}}

In technical workplaces, resolving ethical dilemmas will be part of one's job. Resources, time, and reputations are at stake, so one will feel pressure to overpromise, underdeliver, bend the rules, cook the numbers, or exaggerate results. Technical fields are also highly competitive, so people sometimes stretch a little further than they should. Ethical dilemmas can force one into situations in which all choices seem unsatisfactory<ref>Johnson-Sheehan, Richard. “Managing Ethical Challenges.” ''Technical Communication Today'', 6th ed., Pearson, Boston, MA, 2018, pp. 71–84.</ref>.

The Society for Technical Communication (STC) is the world's oldest professional association dedicated to advancing the field of technical communication.<ref>“About STC.” ''Society for Technical Communication'', 19 May 2021, [https://www.stc.org/about-stc/ www.stc.org/about-stc/] Retrieved October 27, 2023.</ref> The STC promotes adherence to a list of ethical principles. They are legality, honesty, confidentiality, quality, fairness, and professionalism.<ref>“Ethical Principles.” ''Society for Technical Communication'', 20 May 2021, [https://www.stc.org/about-stc/ethical-principles/ www.stc.org/about-stc/ethical-principles/] Retrieved October 27, 2023.</ref>

Technical communicators also have to be careful to avoid plagiarism, or taking ideas, thoughts, or words from someone else and passing them off as ones own.<ref name=":5" />

=== Disinformation===
One major ethical concern in all forms of writing, but especially in digital writing, is the creation and spread of disinformation. Disinformation, often referred to as "[[w:Fake news|fake news]]," is information that is purposefully spread as false or misleading and is a sub-type of misinformation.<ref>Lawrence, Dan. (2022). ''Digital Writing: A Guide to Writing for Social Media and the Web.'' Broadview Press. </ref> Modern communication technologies allow for the spread of information to occur at a fast pace. Social media is one area where the spread of disinformation occurs regularly. Some social media sites, such as Facebook, have begun to flag certain articles posted on the site as being questionable in their representation of facts or occurrences. Despite the widespread understanding and use of disinformation available today, digital writers need to be aware of their intent and the audience's needs and wants from their digital communication.<ref>Lucas, Gerald. (September 13, 2023). "Audience-Centric Style in Digital Writing" in ''From Reading to Writing: A Composition FAQ Textbook.'' Retrieved October 22, 2023. https://grlucas.net/grl/CompFAQ/Digital_Writing/Style</ref> Ethical considerations regarding citing sources, cross-referencing information, and using primary sources are good practices for maintaining ethical standing and credibility as a digital writer.

To help mitigate the problem of disinformation, technical writers should utilize gatekeepers. These individuals verify the accuracy of the information before it is distributed to primary readers. This helps protect the author from any ethical and/or legal issues.<ref name=":4">"Ethics" Balzotti, Jon (2022). ''Technical Communication: A Design-Centric Approach''. New York. Routledge. p. 83. ISBN 978-1-003-00606-0</ref>

==Pedagogical Approaches==
Barriers to teaching technical communications include the speed at which digital tools evolve and the complexity of software. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hovde |first1=Marjorie |last2=Renguette |first2=Corinne |date=2017 |title=Technological Literacy: A Framework for Teaching Technical Communication Software Tools |journal=Technical Communication Quarterly |volume=26 |pages=395-411 |doi=10.1080/10572252.2017.1385998}}</ref>

Informal writing, such as some emailing, instant messaging, and texting, has crept into academic writing. In a study conducted by the Pew Internet & America Life Project, almost half of the respondents admitted to omitting proper punctuation and capitalization. Others even used emoticons. Colleges and universities now must focus on educating students on the different forms of written communication and when best to employ them.<ref name=":5">Carroll, Brian. ''Writing for Digital Media''. Routledge, New York, 2010. p. 280.</ref>

==Future Trends and Challenges==
===Future Trends===
Between 2022 and 2032, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Labor_Statistics, United States Bureau of Labor Statistics] is projecting a 7% job growth for technical writers. <ref>{{cite web
| url = https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/technical-writers.htm#tab-6
| title = Occupational Outlook Handbook
| last =
| first=
| date= September 6, 2023
| website = Bureau of Labor Statistics
| publisher =
| access-date = November 7, 2023
|ref=harv
}}</ref>

===Challenges===
Among others, a prominent barrier to technical writers is the dependency on input information accuracy. Outdated, incorrect, or inconsistent data delays the publication, requires more reparative efforts, and decreases productivity. <ref>Common problems in technical writing and how to resolve them (componize.com)</ref> Also, Technical writers often have to contend with complex, outdated or unsuitable tools. This can make their job more difficult and time-consuming, and can lead to frustration and errors.<ref>[https://componize.com/common-problems-in-technical-writing-and-how-to-resolve-them/#:~:text=Technical%20writers%20often%20have%20to,longer%20supported%20by%20the%20vendor]</ref>

===Artificial Intelligence===
Artificial intelligence programs, utilizing natural language processing, are capable of producing technical writing and have advanced in recent years becoming more adept.<ref>{{cite web
| url = https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/01/23/how-chatgpt-and-natural-language-technology-might-affect-your-job-if-you-are-a-computer-programmer/?sh=6d9acf79174b
| title = How ChatGPT And Natural Language Technology Might Affect Your Job If You Are A Computer Programmer
| last = Marr
| first= Bernard
| date= January 23, 2023
| website = Forbes
| publisher =
| access-date =October 31, 2023
|quote=
|ref=harv
}}</ref>
One such program is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT ChatGPT], which uses machine learning to produce texts with human-like style and tone. <ref>{{cite web | url =https://uca.edu/cetal/chat-gpt/ | title =Chat GPT: What is it? | last = | first = | date = | website =University of Central Arkansas | publisher = | access-date =October 9, 2023 }}</ref> Another leader in this area, Contentbot, uses a WordPress plugin which gives blog writers ideas to enhance their posts which are shared via email. <ref>Siddiqui, Zafar (January 2022). "Will Best Artificial Intelligence Take Over any Technical Content Writer?" The Writing Cooperative. https://writingcooperative.com/intricacies-of-ai-tools-can-ai-tools-take-over-the-jobs-of-technical-writers-af36836f625c</ref>

==== ''Plagiarism'' ====
Because of the ability of chatbots to imitate human-like language, some education administrators have taken precautions to minimize the occurrence of students passing off artificially generated texts as their own. In some instances, educators have taken the view that material drawn from artificial intelligence software must be handled in the same way as sources from human authors. <ref>Klein, Alyson. “ChatGPT Cheating: What to Do When It Happens.” Education Week (Bethesda, MD), 21 Feb. 2023. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=pwh&AN=2W64116997758&site=eds-live&scope=site.</ref> In such cases, students who incorporate artificially generated text into their work have been made to denote credit for the artificial intelligence program utilized.

==== ''Credit'' ====
The advent of chatbots has complicated the issue of credit where creative work is concerned. Because chatbots can simulate human speech, their ability to create cinematic dialogues and other types of creative writing have threatened the credits and financial condition of professional writers. According to an article by Aaron Mok and Jacob Zinkula on ''[https://www.businessinsider.com/ Business Insider]'', writing jobs are among the top 10 roles that AI is most likely to replace. <ref>Mok, Aaron, and Jacob Zinkula. “ChatGPT May Be Coming for Our Jobs. Here Are the 10 Roles That AI Is Most Likely to Replace.” Business Insider, 4 Sept. 2023, www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-jobs-at-risk-replacement-artificial-intelligence-ai-labor-trends-2023-02.</ref>

==References==
===Citations===
{{Reflist}}

===Bibliography ===
{{Refbegin|30em}} 
*{{cite book |last=Carroll |first=Brian |date=2010 |title=Writing for Digital Media |url= |location=New York |publisher=Routledge }}
*{{cite book |last=Barr |first=Chris |date=2010 |title=Yahoo! Style Guide |url= |location=New York |publisher=St. Martin's }}
* {{cite book |last=Krug |first=Steve |date=2014 |title=Don’t Make Me Think, Revisited|url= |location=Berkeley, CA |publisher=New Riders |pages= |isbn= |author-link= |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Robbins |first=Jennifer Niederst |date=2018 |title=Learning Web Design: A Beginner’s Guide to HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and Web Graphics (5th ed.) |url= |location=Sebastopol, CA |publisher= O’Reilly Media, Inc. }}
{{Refend}}

[[Category:Fall 2023]]
[[Category:ENGL 5106]]

Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-10-28T00:23:04Z

Mroma98: /* Ethical Considerations */ Deleted original submission and created new one with expanded information. Dr. Lucas was cited in original submission.

'''Technical Writing in the Digital Age''' represents the dynamic and evolving discipline of creating written materials that convey complex information, instructions, and technical concepts in the context of contemporary digital technologies. Its purview encompasses the creation, dissemination, and management of technical documents and content within an expansive digital landscape.

Major considerations within this domain revolve around adapting traditional principles of rhetoric to digital platforms, ensuring effective communication in an era defined by rapid technological advancements. Key factors include the integration of multimedia elements, user-centered design principles, and ethical considerations like accessibility and inclusivity. This discipline also extends to collaborative writing processes and version control systems, acknowledging the necessity of teamwork in producing accurate and up-to-date technical documentation. In essence, technical writing in the digital age encapsulates the art and science of conveying technical information in a manner that is both comprehensible and accessible to diverse audiences in our digitally-driven society.

==Overview==

===Types of Technical Communication===
Common types of technical communication include instructions, user guides, reports, memos, and procedures. <ref>{{cite book
| last1 = Lannon
| first1 = John
| last2 = Gurak
| first2 = Laura
| date = 2022
| title = Technical Communication
| edition = 15th
| publisher = Pearson Education Limited
| location = Essex, United Kingdom
| page = 30
| isbn = 1-292-36359-2
}}</ref>

==Historical Context==
===Technical Writing Profession===
The profession of technical writing began to take shape in the 1950s when technical writers began to create formal organizations. During this time, academic programs and conferences were established. Key writing associations, such as the Association of Technical Writers and Editors, were also formed in the 1950s. Several of these associations eventually merged forming the Society of Technical Communication in 1960.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Edward |first1=Malone |date=November 2011 |title=The First Wave (1953–1961) of the Professionalization Movement in Technical Communication |url=https://www.stc.org/techcomm/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/08/november-2011-58-4.pdf |journal=Technical Communication |volume=58 |issue=4 |pages=285 - 306 |doi= |access-date=October 11, 2023}}</ref>

==Digital Technologies and Technical Writing==
With the rise of digital technology, technical writing has had to adapt to the needs of a digital era. However, many of the same aspects of effective technical writing, such as remaining clear, concise, complete, and correct, still need to be applied to technical writing created for digital interfaces. <ref>Carroll, Brian. ''Writing for Digital Media''. Routledge. New York, 2010. p.24.</ref>

==Rhetorical Strategies in the Digital Age==
Rhetoric is a communication strategy whose primary goal is to persuade an audience. Rhetorical analysis involves analyzing the demographics and habits of an intended audience. The information gathered allows writers to craft messages that appeal to the target audience. In the digital age, rhetorical messages are conveyed via websites and social media platforms. <ref>{{cite book
| last =Lawrence
| first =Dan
| date =2022
| title =Digital Writing
| location =Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
| publisher =Broadview Press
| page = 6-14
| isbn =9781770488229
}}</ref>

==Online Documentation and User Experience==

=== Accessibility ===
Website content should be designed in accordance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) to ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to access the same information as those without disabilities.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-intro/ |title=Introduction to Web Accessibility |author= |website=Web Accessibility Initiative |access-date=October 26, 2023 }}</ref> It is a legal requirement to include accessibility features in website design.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://wcag.com/legal/ |title=Accessibility and the Web |author= |website=WCAG |access-date=October 26, 2023 }}</ref>

==Collaboration and Version Control==

==Ethical Considerations==
Technical communicators have ethical standards to which they must abide. The standards are divided into three primary categories. They are the employer, the public, and the environment.<ref name=":0">Markel, Mike. ''Technical Communication''. 9th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston, 2009. p.22-25.</ref>

Obligations to one's employer include competence and diligence, honesty and candor, confidentiality, and loyalty.<ref name=":0" /> The technical communicator must adhere to these obligations so that he/she does not harm the reputation or operation of the employer.

Organizations are obligated to treat customers fairly. Technical communicators must convey that the products or services an organization is selling are safe and effective.<ref name=":0" />

Technical communicators have an obligation to the environment. Technical communicators are obligated to alert their supervisors, managers, and executive leadership to products or processes that are detrimental to the environment. Disposal of hazardous waste is far more costly than dumping it. Organizations could be tempted to skirt the legal procedures.<ref name=":0" />

The Society for Technical Communication (STC) is the world’s oldest professional association dedicated to the advancement of the field of technical communication.<ref>“About STC.” ''Society for Technical Communication'', 19 May 2021, [https://www.stc.org/about-stc/ www.stc.org/about-stc/] Retrieved October 27, 2023.</ref> The STC promotes adherence to a list of ethical principles. They are legality, honesty, confidentiality, quality, fairness, and professionalism.<ref>“Ethical Principles.” ''Society for Technical Communication'', 20 May 2021, [https://www.stc.org/about-stc/ethical-principles/ www.stc.org/about-stc/ethical-principles/] Retrieved October 27, 2023.</ref>

=== Disinformation ===
One major ethical concern in all forms of writing, but especially in digital writing, is the creation and spread of disinformation. Disinformation, often referred to as “[[w:Fake news|fake news]],” is information that is purposefully spread as false or misleading and is a sub-type of misinformation.<ref>Lawrence, Dan. (2022). ''Digital Writing: A Guide to Writing for Social Media and the Web.'' Broadview Press. </ref> Modern communication technologies allow for the spread of information to occur at a fast pace. Social media is one area where the spread of disinformation occurs regularly. Some social media sites, such as Facebook, have begun to flag certain articles posted on the site as being questionable in their representation of facts or occurrences. Despite the widespread understanding and use of disinformation available today, digital writers need to be aware of their intent and the audience's needs and wants from their digital communication.<ref>Lucas, Gerald. (September 13, 2023). "Audience-Centric Style in Digital Writing" in ''From Reading to Writing: A Composition FAQ Textbook.'' Retrieved October 22, 2023. https://grlucas.net/grl/CompFAQ/Digital_Writing/Style</ref> Ethical considerations regarding citing sources, cross-referencing information, and using primary sources are good practices to maintain your ethical standing and credibility as a digital writer.

==Pedagogical Approaches==
Barriers to teaching technical communications include the speed at which digital tools evolve and the complexity of software. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hovde |first1=Marjorie |last2=Renguette |first2=Corinne |date=2017 |title=Technological Literacy: A Framework for Teaching Technical Communication Software Tools |journal=Technical Communication Quarterly |volume=26 |pages=395-411 |doi=10.1080/10572252.2017.1385998}}</ref>

Informal writing, such as some emailing, instant messaging, and texting, has crept into academic writing. In a study conducted by the Pew Internet & America Life Project, almost half of the respondents admitted to omitting proper punctuation and capitalization. Others even used emoticons. Colleges and universities now must focus on educating students on the different forms of written communication and when best to employ them.<ref>Carroll, Brian. ''Writing for Digital Media''. Routledge, New York, 2010. p. 20.</ref>

==Future Trends and Challenges==

=== Artificial Intelligence ===
Artificial intelligence programs are capable of producing technical writings. One such program is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT ChatGPT] which uses machine learning to produce texts with human-like style and tone. <ref>{{cite web

| url =https://uca.edu/cetal/chat-gpt/

| title =Chat GPT: What is it?

| last =

| first =

| date =

| website =University of Central Arkansas

| publisher =

| access-date =October 9, 2023

| quote =

}}</ref>

==References==

[[Category:Fall 2023]]
[[Category:ENGL 5106]]
<references />

Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-10-14T19:33:55Z

Mroma98: /* Pedagogical Approaches */

'''Technical Writing in the Digital Age''' represents the dynamic and evolving discipline of creating written materials that convey complex information, instructions, and technical concepts in the context of contemporary digital technologies. Its purview encompasses the creation, dissemination, and management of technical documents and content within an expansive digital landscape.

Major considerations within this domain revolve around adapting traditional principles of rhetoric to digital platforms, ensuring effective communication in an era defined by rapid technological advancements. Key factors include the integration of multimedia elements, user-centered design principles, and ethical considerations like accessibility and inclusivity. This discipline also extends to collaborative writing processes and version control systems, acknowledging the necessity of teamwork in producing accurate and up-to-date technical documentation. In essence, technical writing in the digital age encapsulates the art and science of conveying technical information in a manner that is both comprehensible and accessible to diverse audiences in our digitally-driven society.

==Overview==

===Types of Technical Communication===
Common types of technical communication include instructions, user guides, reports, memos, and procedures. <ref>{{cite book
| last1 = Lannon
| first1 = John
| last2 = Gurak
| first2 = Laura
| date = 2022
| title = Technical Communication
| edition = 15th
| publisher = Pearson Education Limited
| location = Essex, United Kingdom
| page = 30
| isbn = 1-292-36359-2
}}</ref>

==Historical Context==
===Technical Writing Profession===
The profession of technical writing began to take shape in the 1950's when technical writers began to create formal organizations. During this time, academic programs and conferences were established. Key writing associations, such as the Association of Technical Writers and Editors, were also formed in the 1950's. Several of these associations eventually merged forming the Society of Technical Communication in 1960.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Edward |first1=Malone |date=November 2011 |title=The First Wave (1953–1961) of the Professionalization Movement in Technical Communication |url=https://www.stc.org/techcomm/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/08/november-2011-58-4.pdf |journal=Technical Communication |volume=58 |issue=4 |pages=285 - 306 |doi= |access-date=October 11, 2023}}</ref>

==Digital Technologies and Technical Writing==

==Rhetorical Strategies in the Digital Age==
Rhetoric is a communication strategy whose primary goal is to persuade an audience. Rhetorical analysis involves analyzing the demographics and habits of an intended audience. The information gathered allows writers to craft messages that appeal to the target audience. In the digital age, rhetorical messages are conveyed via websites and social media platforms. <ref>{{cite book
| last =Lawrence
| first =Dan
| date =2022
| title =Digital Writing
| location =Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
| publisher =Broadview Press
| page = 6-14
| isbn =9781770488229
}}</ref>

==Online Documentation and User Experience==

==Collaboration and Version Control==

==Ethical Considerations==
Technical writing in the digital age must be done with certain ethical considerations in mind. Dr. Gerald R. Lucas, Ph.D., is an English professor for Middle Georgia State University and specializes in digital media. In his book, ''Technical Writing in the Digital Age: A Coursebook'', he elaborates upon the ethical considerations. Says Dr. Lucas, "Technical writers must uphold ethical standards, which include accurately representing information, giving proper credit to sources, and avoiding plagiarism. This is particularly important in scientific and academic writing, where credibility and intellectual integrity are paramount."<ref>Lucas, Gerald (September 14, 2023). "Defining Technical Writing" ''From Reading to Writing A Composition FAQ Textbook.'' Retrieved October 7, 2023. [https://grlucas.net/grl/CompFAQ/Technical_Writing#cite_ref-1<nowiki>]</nowiki></ref>

==Pedagogical Approaches==
Barriers to teaching technical communications include the speed at which digital tools evolve and the complexity of software. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hovde |first1=Marjorie |last2=Renguette |first2=Corinne |date=2017 |title=Technological Literacy: A Framework for Teaching Technical Communication Software Tools |journal=Technical Communication Quarterly |volume=26 |pages=395-411 |doi=10.1080/10572252.2017.1385998}}</ref>

Informal writing, such as some emailing, instant messaging, and texting, has crept into academic writing. In a study conducted by the Pew Internet & America Life Project, almost half of the respondents admitted to omitting proper punctuation and capitalization. Others even used emoticons. Colleges and universities now must focus on educating students on the different forms of written communication and when best to employ them.<ref>Carroll, Brian. ''Writing for Digital Media''. Routledge, New York, 2010. p. 20.</ref>

==Future Trends and Challenges==
Artificial intelligence programs are capable of producing technical writings. One such program is [https://chat.openai.com/auth/login ChatGPT] which uses machine learning to produce texts with human-like style and tone. <ref>{{cite web

| url =https://uca.edu/cetal/chat-gpt/

| title =Chat GPT: What is it?

| last =

| first =

| date =

| website =University of Central Arkanas

| publisher =

| access-date =October 9, 2023

| quote =

}}</ref>

==References==

[[Category:Fall 2023]]
[[Category:ENGL 5106]]
<references />

Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-10-08T13:33:27Z

Mroma98: /* References */

'''Technical Writing in the Digital Age''' represents the dynamic and evolving discipline of creating written materials that convey complex information, instructions, and technical concepts in the context of contemporary digital technologies. Its purview encompasses the creation, dissemination, and management of technical documents and content within an expansive digital landscape.

Major considerations within this domain revolve around adapting traditional principles of rhetoric to digital platforms, ensuring effective communication in an era defined by rapid technological advancements. Key factors include the integration of multimedia elements, user-centered design principles, and ethical considerations like accessibility and inclusivity. This discipline also extends to collaborative writing processes and version control systems, acknowledging the necessity of teamwork in producing accurate and up-to-date technical documentation. In essence, technical writing in the digital age encapsulates the art and science of conveying technical information in a manner that is both comprehensible and accessible to diverse audiences in our digitally-driven society.

==Overview==

===Types of Technical Communication===
Common types of technical communication include instructions, user guides, reports, memos, and procedures. <ref>{{cite book
| last1 = Lannon
| first1 = John
| last2 = Gurak
| first2 = Laura
| date = 2022
| title = Technical Communication
| edition = 15th
| publisher = Pearson Education Limited
| location = Essex, United Kingdom
| page = 30
| isbn = 1-292-36359-2
}}</ref>

==Historical Context==

==Digital Technologies and Technical Writing==

==Rhetorical Strategies in the Digital Age==

==Online Documentation and User Experience==

==Collaboration and Version Control==

==Ethical Considerations==
Technical writing in the digital age must be done with certain ethical considerations in mind. Dr. Gerald R. Lucas, Ph.D., is an English professor for Middle Georgia State University and specializes in digital media. In his book, ''Technical Writing in the Digital Age: A Coursebook'', he elaborates upon the ethical considerations. Says Dr. Lucas, "Technical writers must uphold ethical standards, which include accurately representing information, giving proper credit to sources, and avoiding plagiarism. This is particularly important in scientific and academic writing, where credibility and intellectual integrity are paramount."<ref>Lucas, Gerald (September 14, 2023). "Defining Technical Writing" ''From Reading to Writing A Composition FAQ Textbook.'' Retrieved October 7, 2023. [https://grlucas.net/grl/CompFAQ/Technical_Writing#cite_ref-1<nowiki>]</nowiki></ref>

==Pedagogical Approaches==

==Future Trends and Challenges==

==References==

[[Category:Fall 2023]]
[[Category:ENGL 5106]]
<references />

Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-10-08T13:31:30Z

Mroma98: /* Ethical Considerations */

'''Technical Writing in the Digital Age''' represents the dynamic and evolving discipline of creating written materials that convey complex information, instructions, and technical concepts in the context of contemporary digital technologies. Its purview encompasses the creation, dissemination, and management of technical documents and content within an expansive digital landscape.

Major considerations within this domain revolve around adapting traditional principles of rhetoric to digital platforms, ensuring effective communication in an era defined by rapid technological advancements. Key factors include the integration of multimedia elements, user-centered design principles, and ethical considerations like accessibility and inclusivity. This discipline also extends to collaborative writing processes and version control systems, acknowledging the necessity of teamwork in producing accurate and up-to-date technical documentation. In essence, technical writing in the digital age encapsulates the art and science of conveying technical information in a manner that is both comprehensible and accessible to diverse audiences in our digitally-driven society.

==Overview==

===Types of Technical Communication===
Common types of technical communication include instructions, user guides, reports, memos, and procedures. <ref>{{cite book
| last1 = Lannon
| first1 = John
| last2 = Gurak
| first2 = Laura
| date = 2022
| title = Technical Communication
| edition = 15th
| publisher = Pearson Education Limited
| location = Essex, United Kingdom
| page = 30
| isbn = 1-292-36359-2
}}</ref>

==Historical Context==

==Digital Technologies and Technical Writing==

==Rhetorical Strategies in the Digital Age==

==Online Documentation and User Experience==

==Collaboration and Version Control==

==Ethical Considerations==
Technical writing in the digital age must be done with certain ethical considerations in mind. Dr. Gerald R. Lucas, Ph.D., is an English professor for Middle Georgia State University and specializes in digital media. In his book, ''Technical Writing in the Digital Age: A Coursebook'', he elaborates upon the ethical considerations. Says Dr. Lucas, "Technical writers must uphold ethical standards, which include accurately representing information, giving proper credit to sources, and avoiding plagiarism. This is particularly important in scientific and academic writing, where credibility and intellectual integrity are paramount."<ref>Lucas, Gerald (September 14, 2023). "Defining Technical Writing" ''From Reading to Writing A Composition FAQ Textbook.'' Retrieved October 7, 2023. [./Https://grlucas.net/grl/CompFAQ/Technical Writing https://grlucas.net/grl/CompFAQ/Technical_Writing#cite_ref-1]</ref>

==Pedagogical Approaches==

==Future Trends and Challenges==

==References==

[[Category:Fall 2023]]
[[Category:ENGL 5106]]

Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-10-08T13:24:32Z

Mroma98: /* Ethical Considerations */

'''Technical Writing in the Digital Age''' represents the dynamic and evolving discipline of creating written materials that convey complex information, instructions, and technical concepts in the context of contemporary digital technologies. Its purview encompasses the creation, dissemination, and management of technical documents and content within an expansive digital landscape.

Major considerations within this domain revolve around adapting traditional principles of rhetoric to digital platforms, ensuring effective communication in an era defined by rapid technological advancements. Key factors include the integration of multimedia elements, user-centered design principles, and ethical considerations like accessibility and inclusivity. This discipline also extends to collaborative writing processes and version control systems, acknowledging the necessity of teamwork in producing accurate and up-to-date technical documentation. In essence, technical writing in the digital age encapsulates the art and science of conveying technical information in a manner that is both comprehensible and accessible to diverse audiences in our digitally-driven society.

==Overview==

===Types of Technical Communication===
Common types of technical communication include instructions, user guides, reports, memos, and procedures. <ref>{{cite book
| last1 = Lannon
| first1 = John
| last2 = Gurak
| first2 = Laura
| date = 2022
| title = Technical Communication
| edition = 15th
| publisher = Pearson Education Limited
| location = Essex, United Kingdom
| page = 30
| isbn = 1-292-36359-2
}}</ref>

==Historical Context==

==Digital Technologies and Technical Writing==

==Rhetorical Strategies in the Digital Age==

==Online Documentation and User Experience==

==Collaboration and Version Control==

==Ethical Considerations==
Technical writing in the digital age must be done with certain ethical considerations in mind. Dr. Gerald R. Lucas, Ph.D., is an English professor for Middle Georgia State University and specializes in digital media. In his book, ''Technical Writing in the Digital Age: A Coursebook'', he elaborates upon the ethical considerations. Says Dr. Lucas, "Technical writers must uphold ethical standards, which include accurately representing information, giving proper credit to sources, and avoiding plagiarism. This is particularly important in scientific and academic writing, where credibility and intellectual integrity are paramount."<ref>Lucas, Gerald (September 14, 2023). "Defining Technical Writing" ''From Reading to Writing A Composition FAQ Textbook.'' Retrieved October 7, 2023. [https://grlucas.net/grl/CompFAQ/Technical_Writing#cite_ref-1]</ref>

==Pedagogical Approaches==

==Future Trends and Challenges==

==References==

[[Category:Fall 2023]]
[[Category:ENGL 5106]]

Technical Writing in the Digital Age

2023-10-07T21:37:21Z

Mroma98: /* Ethical Considerations */

'''Technical Writing in the Digital Age''' represents the dynamic and evolving discipline of creating written materials that convey complex information, instructions, and technical concepts in the context of contemporary digital technologies. Its purview encompasses the creation, dissemination, and management of technical documents and content within an expansive digital landscape.

Major considerations within this domain revolve around adapting traditional principles of rhetoric to digital platforms, ensuring effective communication in an era defined by rapid technological advancements. Key factors include the integration of multimedia elements, user-centered design principles, and ethical considerations like accessibility and inclusivity. This discipline also extends to collaborative writing processes and version control systems, acknowledging the necessity of teamwork in producing accurate and up-to-date technical documentation. In essence, technical writing in the digital age encapsulates the art and science of conveying technical information in a manner that is both comprehensible and accessible to diverse audiences in our digitally-driven society.

==Overview==

===Types of Technical Communication===
Common types of technical communication include instructions, user guides, reports, memos, and procedures. <ref>{{cite book
| last1 = Lannon
| first1 = John
| last2 = Gurak
| first2 = Laura
| date = 2022
| title = Technical Communication
| edition = 15th
| publisher = Pearson Education Limited
| location = Essex, United Kingdom
| page = 30
| isbn = 1-292-36359-2
}}</ref>

==Historical Context==

==Digital Technologies and Technical Writing==

==Rhetorical Strategies in the Digital Age==

==Online Documentation and User Experience==

==Collaboration and Version Control==

==Ethical Considerations==
Technical writers must uphold ethical standards, which include accurately representing information, giving proper credit to sources, and avoiding plagiarism. This is particularly important in scientific and academic writing, where credibility and intellectual integrity are paramount.<ref>Lucas, Gerald (September 14, 2023). "Defining Technical Writing" ''From Reading to Writing A Composition FAQ Textbook.'' Retrieved October 7, 2023. [https://grlucas.net/grl/CompFAQ/Technical_Writing#cite_ref-1]</ref>

==Pedagogical Approaches==

==Future Trends and Challenges==

==References==

[[Category:Fall 2023]]
[[Category:ENGL 5106]]

ENGL 5106

2023-10-07T03:37:01Z

Mroma98: /* Course Members */

{{Big|Welcome to the wiki page for ENGL 5106: Technical Writing in the Digital Age.}}

The fall 2023 sections of ENGL 5106 (CRNs 82482 and 84154) will use LitWiki for their collaborative wiki project.

== Course Information ==
* [[grl:ENGL 5106/Fall 2023|Syllabus]]

== Course Members ==
After you get an account, you may add it below. Next, be sure to write a short bio on your user page.
* {{u|Glucas|Dr. Lucas}}
* [[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbie Wolfe]]
* [[User:Kleinberger|Kimberly Leinberger]]
* [[User:Apjones428|Ashley Jones]]
* [[User:AWilliamson|Ashley Williamson]]
* [[User:Elaine Streeter|Elaine Streeter]]
* [[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]]
* [[User:CEToledo|Claire Toledo]]
* [[User:Mroma98]]

==Project==
* [[Technical Writing in the Digital Age]]

[[Category:ENGL 5106]]

User:Mroma98

2023-10-07T02:43:52Z

Mroma98: Added completed education

Mike Romano is a Boilermaker for Norfolk Naval Shipyard (NNSY) in Portsmouth, VA. He removes, repairs, tests, and reinstalls boiler and related propulsion system components onboard nuclear and non-nuclear U.S. Navy warships. Mike is currently completing an apprenticeship program at NNSY. Upon completion of this program, Mike hopes to move into the training department as an instructor. There, he can write curriculum and instruct current and future members of NNSY's production workforce. Later in his career, Mike plans to transition into a cybersecurity role.

Born in Portland, OR, Mike is a native of the Pacific Northwest, but he calls Skamania County, WA home. He resides in Chesapeake, VA with his family. Mike has been married for twenty-five years to the former Keri L. Kuhnemann. Mike and Keri have four children, three of whom have graduated high school and one who is still in high school. Mike and his family also have a Pomeranian and two cats.
[[File:Family Photo May 2023.jpg|thumb|Leisha, Angelina, Mike, Keri, Keagan, and Michael, Jr. at Deep Creek Lock Park in Chesapeake, VA. May 2023.]]
Mike considers himself a lifelong learner. He holds two associate's degrees and a career studies certificate from Tidewater Community College. He completed his undergraduate studies by earning a bachelor of arts in history from Old Dominion University. Mike is currently a part-time graduate student at Middle Georgia State University in Macon, GA. He is completing coursework towards a master's in technical and professional writing. Mike plans to further his education by earning a second master's in history, cybersecurity, or a closely related information technology discipline. Mike's ultimate educational goal is to earn a doctorate and become the next "Dr. Romano" in the family, as there are already several.

User:Mroma98

2023-10-07T02:34:43Z

Mroma98: Initial entry completed

Mike Romano is a Boilermaker for Norfolk Naval Shipyard (NNSY) in Portsmouth, VA. He removes, repairs, tests, and reinstalls boiler and related propulsion system components onboard nuclear and non-nuclear U.S. Navy warships. Mike is currently completing an apprenticeship program at NNSY. Upon completion of this program, Mike hopes to move into the training department as an instructor. There, he can write curriculum and instruct current and future members of NNSY's production workforce. Later in his career, Mike plans to transition into a cybersecurity role.

Born in Portland, OR, Mike is a native of the Pacific Northwest, but he calls Skamania County, WA home. He resides in Chesapeake, VA with his family. Mike has been married for twenty-five years to the former Keri L. Kuhnemann. Mike and Keri have four children, three of whom have graduated high school and one who is still in high school. Mike and his family also have a Pomeranian and two cats.
[[File:Family Photo May 2023.jpg|thumb|Leisha, Angelina, Mike, Keri, Keagan, and Michael, Jr. at Deep Creek Lock Park in Chesapeake, VA. May 2023.]]
Mike is currently a part-time graduate student at Middle Georgia State University in Macon, GA. He is completing coursework towards a master's in technical and professional writing. Mike plans to further his education by earning a second master's in history, cybersecurity, or a closely related information technology discipline. Mike's ultimate educational goal is to earn a doctorate and become the next "Dr. Romano" in the family, as there are already several.

File:Family Photo May 2023.jpg

2023-10-07T02:32:29Z

Mroma98:

Mike and his family completed a photo session at Deep Creek Lock Park in Chesapeake, VA with a family friend in the Spring of 2023.