My background is pretty deep on the electronics engineering side. In
reading over Jim's material, it was not hard for me to digest. However,
in my field, communications, I often encounter people who receive a
course on operating two way radios and upon conclusion are so befuddled
they can not operate the power switch, do not understand the scan
function, not can they change from one talk group zone to another.
As someone who has written "greatly simplified instructions" to a
class of highly trained individuals, I have discovered that about half
of those who read my (2/3 of a page of #12 type) work are 'lost.' It's
frustrating because it's written to a fifth grade level.
Some thoughts:
1. The simpler the better. If it's too long, it's too distracting.
2. Technical people are the most easily confused. (They think they know??)
3. Some people want the bottom line without any explanation and that's all.
4. Once it's working (even partially) some won't touch it for fear it will
become inoperative by a simple button press for which they'll be blamed.
Oh well, it's a job! Thanks for reading!!
73 de Phil - N8PS
----
Quoting Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>:
> Well... kinda...
>
> There IS a bit of relativity to all of this. What may seem elementary
> to an electrical engineer, may still, in turn, seem like a totally
> foreign language to another with a vastly different career.
>
> I have a doctorate degree in something, and as an undergrad majored in
> Philosophy, (after all, if one can read Kant's "Critique of Pure
> Reason" - then he can read just about anything else...) - nevertheless I
> find your work difficult and challenging.
>
> A suggestion :
>
> I read the conclusions first, and then the beefy
> sections explaining it all. A murder mystery is
> a lot easier to follow if you already know
> who "done it." ;-)
>
> I also find reading it all the way through quickly on one day, and then
> re-read it slowly, and painstakingly careful the next day, yields the
> greatest comprehension - as you say, one must study it.
>
> But we are bit really complaining. I would rather have a difficult,
> but detailed and comprehensive explanation, than one that is so
> condensed or simplified as to be misleading or confusing for lack of
> substance. Yet, while your work is sufficiently detailed, and
> technically proficient, it is not exactly light reading ! ;-)
>
> Funny thing, Jim, but this piece was mentioned tonight in the TS-590s
> discussion group... so you are getting around a bit.
>
> Happy days.
>
> ====================== Richards -- K8JHR ========================
>
>
> On 10/30/2011 1:21 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>
>> Not really. In fact, it is written for hams WITHOUT a college technical
>> education, but who have done at least some studying of electronics and
>> how radio works.
>
> My stuff is written for those who want to learn.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|