I'm walking through a trial that has led me to do a lot of reading on the nature of suffering.
I'm stepping away from the blog for a while.
A blog post at Nautilus argues that we need a whole new class of experts who study the science of stupidity. I don't know, but I suspect that such people already exist.
My writing colleagues and I recently presented on our favorite help systems from companies like Lego, Spotify, Google, and WordPress. Here are some things we found, and some implications for writers of help content.
Arbortext Editor is a software program that lets you do "structured writing"---a special kind of writing in which every piece of content you compose follows one or more predefined rules. In theory this helps writers to develop consistent, high-quality content. The problem is that the tool has a lot of serious shortcomings. Here's my wishlist of things to improve.
We all have stories of stupid things we have thought before, and in our current climate of political division and echo chambers, we all know people (friends, relatives, acquaintances, total strangers) whose opinions we find particularly dumb. Why is that? Why do we seem to have so much bad thinking in our lives and society at large when we have access to more knowledge and education than ever before? That is one of the central questions Alan Jacobs sets out to answer in his book, 'How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds.'
It is all too possible for technical writing applicants, whether unconsciously or not, to create a misleading impression of their writing and design abilities. Here are some ways to address that.