franz@csuchico.edu (Fran Holtsberry) (08/10/90)
Some folks are taking offense at being called typists in this day and age of word processing. If a person who types is called a typist, what is the official designation for a person who does word processing? This is a serious request, Some university documents are on hold until we work this out. Fran Holtsberry Publications Editor Cal State Chico Computer Center eetp735@calstate.edu franz@csuchico.edu
glratt@rice.edu (Glenn Forbes Larrett) (08/10/90)
>If a person who types is called a typist, >what is the official designation for a person >who does word processing? Well... "word processor" : technically accurate, but connotes the program rather than the person word processing "word processor operator/user" : again, technically accurate, but connotes someone with perhaps more of a computer bent than would probably be the case "secretary" : connotes a possibly inaccurate servile/subordinate status "typist" : >Some folks are taking offense, etc. (flame on) "typist with an attitude" : perhaps more accurate, though belligerent "typist with an attitude problem" : ditto "#@*&^% typist with a @#)*($& attitude problem" : double ditto "word processing professional" : professionalism, IMHO, ought to transcend quibbling about titles/official designations. Hell, call 'em word processors: they'll get tired of being regarded as machines soon enough. (flame off) Disclaimer: I opine for myself, my whole self, and no one but myself. Glenn Larratt glratt@uncle-bens.rice.edu Glenn Larratt glratt@uncle-bens.rice.edu Computing Resource Center OCIS, Rice University, Houston, Texas
richard@gara.une.oz.au (Richard Mackerras CCEN) (08/10/90)
In article <1990Aug09.224407.29847@csuchico.edu>, franz@csuchico.edu (Fran Holtsberry) writes: > Some folks are taking offense at being called typists > in this day and age of word processing. > If a person who types is called a typist, > what is the official designation for a person > who does word processing? A Secretary!! > This is a serious request, Some university documents > are on hold until we work this out. What does this have to do with comp.sys.ibm.pc Call for news group altercation.boring
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (08/10/90)
<1990Aug09.224407.29847@csuchico.edu>, franz@csuchico.edu (Fran Holtsberry) : | If a person who types is called a typist, | what is the official designation for a person | who does word processing? | | This is a serious request, Some university documents | are on hold until we work this out. Word Processor Operator Word-Processing Specialist Document Preparer (or, Document Preparation Specialist) Text Entry Clerk Less seriously, End User Keypunch Operator Obstructionist These people are engaged in a work stoppage because they don't like being called typists? Either your area is real mean to typists, or these people have found a good scam for taking long coffee breaks. (Could well be the former. Are there a lot of sexists around?)
swsh@ellis.uchicago.edu (Janet M. Swisher) (08/10/90)
In article <53989@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes: ><1990Aug09.224407.29847@csuchico.edu>, franz@csuchico.edu (Fran Holtsberry) : >| If a person who types is called a typist, what is the official >| designation for a person who does word processing? >| This is a serious request, Some university documents >| are on hold until we work this out. >These people are engaged in a work stoppage because they don't like >being called typists? Either your area is real mean to typists, or >these people have found a good scam for taking long coffee breaks. I understood the original post to mean not that the typists were refusing to type, but that the university documents refer to these people, and the documents can't be finished until it is decided what to call them. As for what to call them, I would say you only need a distinction if you actually still have people who only type on typewriters, in addtion to the people who use wordprocessing programs. Personally, I dislike title inflation, but it's true that wordprocessing requires broader skills than straight typing. Call some local vocational schools and ask them what job positions they claim to be training people for. -- Janet Swisher Internet: swsh@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Phone: (312) 702-7608 Academic and Public Computing P-mail: 1155 E. 60th St. Chicago IL 60637, USA "It's all just stuff, but some stuff is better than other stuff." R. McClamrock
isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu ( ISR group account) (08/10/90)
Well, assumably since "Typist" comes from what they do, typing. and those who use word processors or processing, then conceivably you could call them "procists" or "procs". Personally i would ask them how the think they are going to do any word proccessign without typing... Or, call them by what the are typing.. (ow, that word again) To really be accurate, assuming they are not writing this but are typing in from something. you could have three job titles: "Letter-clerk" "manuscript-entry clerk" "data-entry clerk" Note the last one is already in common use. But I would refrain from buckling in and call them typists. Really. Tell 'em to join reality.-- Mike Schechter, Computer Engineer,Institute Sensory Research, Syracuse Univ. InterNet: Mike_Schechter@isr.syr.edu isr@rodan.syr.edu Bitnet: SENSORY@SUNRISE
cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee) (08/10/90)
In article <1990Aug09.224407.29847@csuchico.edu> franz@csuchico.edu (Fran Holtsberry) writes: >Some folks are taking offense at being called typists >in this day and age of word processing. >If a person who types is called a typist, >what is the official designation for a person >who does word processing? >This is a serious request, Some university documents >are on hold until we work this out. This appears to be another attempt to propagate Newspeak. The word typist adequately describes the function of someone who uses a word processor to type documents. The only difference is the tool used: a word processor vs. a typewriter. The important thing is the function of the person, not the tool used. Thus, the invention of a new word serves merely to confuse not clarify the situation. New words should be invented when a clear need arises. For instance, the word "astronaut" was invented when the need for a descriptor was needed for someone who travels in space. The name of the tool used to achieve space travel was not changed. Both the toys that have been used for centuries and the machine built to carry the astronauts were called "rockets." The fact that the size and the capacity of the rocket increased by many orders of magnitude did not change nature of the rocket. Thus, a new descriptor was not required. Conway Yee, N2JWQ
slbg6790@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mephisto) (08/11/90)
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes: ><1990Aug09.224407.29847@csuchico.edu>, franz@csuchico.edu (Fran Holtsberry) : >| If a person who types is called a typist, >| what is the official designation for a person >| who does word processing? >| >Less seriously, > End User > Keypunch Operator > Obstructionist Even less seriously, Word Processor Text Editor Document Entry Specialist ASCII Encryption Specialist
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (08/11/90)
franz@csuchico.edu (Fran Holtsberry) writes: > If a person who types is called a typist, what is the official > designation for a person who does word processing? I would vote for "word processor". I believe that, in the deep dark past, "computer" referred to a person who did computations, not the machine he or she used to do them. This probably explains why the ACM uses the somewhat odd (to modern ears) phrase "computing machinery" in their name; I think at the time the ACM was formed, a "computer" was still a person. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
Adam.Frix@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (08/13/90)
Conway Yee writes in a message on 08/10/90 at 16:15:11 ... CY> This appears to be another attempt to propagate Newspeak. The CY> word typist adequately describes the function of someone who CY> uses a word processor to type documents. The only difference CY> is the tool used: a word processor vs. a typewriter. The important CY> thing is the function of the person, not the tool used. Thus, CY> the invention of a new word serves merely to confuse not clarify CY> the situation. Back in '84-'86 I worked for a major chemical company, in their corporate credit department, and I operated a terminal on an IBM 5520 word processing mainframe. This was a _great_ machine, and I used it to its potential and then some; however, the person who worked alongside me in the same capacity had absolutely no computer experience or background, and used the thing as a big, expensive Selectric typewriter. She never learned, nor had the inclination to learn, how to automate the tasks put to her. She filled in form letters, one at a time, and saved them, one at a time, and printed them, one at a time, even though she was sending 60 copies of the same letter to 60 different people. I could not explain to her about setting up merge documents, which create final filled-in documents, which only creates 2 files on the system and required only a few keystrokes per letter. Consequently, she ended up working at about one-tenth the speed as I did. Now, we both typed; however, I was able to use the computer as a computer. Did we have different skills? You betcha. She was a typist, I operated a computer. That in the course of our duties we both performed the same action--using our fingers to press the appropriate keys on identical keyboards--does not mean that we did the same thing. Any computer input requires some kind of keyboard skills. In that respect, we're all typists. We all typed on a keyboard in order to get these messages into our respective systems. So, you can sit a typist down to a computer, but you can't make him a computer operator. Those people are still typists. You can sit a computer operator down to a computer, but not necessarily make him type well. He's a computer operator. What do you have when you sit a 100 wpm typist down to a computer, and he operates it like nobody's business? You certainly have more than a typist. If it's necessary to change the terminology in order to reflect the changing technological scene, then do it. No harm done. (No language remains static.) Call that 100 wpm person a computer operator, with skills that are specific to inputting words (as opposed to "data entry" people, who are highly skilled at using computer-based numeric keypads quickly). Other computer operators might have other specific computer skills, not related to fast typing. Big deal. They're all computer operators. --Adam-- btw, this other person I referred to was hired 6 months after I was, at an initial salary that was higher than my salary after 6 months of employment. The boss's reasoning? "She has 10 years secretarial experience." I couldn't convince the computer-illiterate management that I had more job- and equipment-related skills in my small finger than she had in her whole body (or was ever likely to have, given her attitude). Talk about sexism. I can type fast, and can operate computers very well. But nobody at that company knew what to do with me. I wasn't female, so the women (who were all clerks) felt uncomfortable around me, and I wasn't management, so the men (none of whom were clerks, all were above that level) didn't know how to treat me. Women aren't the only victims of stereotypes. * Origin: See above (1:226/200.2) -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG
DWOLFF@ENO.Prime.COM (08/13/90)
Let's go whole-hog!
"Word Processing Engineer"
:-)
David Wolff
dwolff@eno.prime.com
standard disclaimers, pleasederek@sun4dts.dts.ine.philips.nl (derek) (08/13/90)
You could differentiate by calling them word processers. This is sometimes done (so that -or means the machine and -er means the person(s)). Just a thought. Best Regards, Derek Carr DEREK@DTS.INE.PHILIPS.NL Philips I&E TQV-5 Eindhoven, The Netherlands Standard Disclaimers apply.
casey@well.sf.ca.us (Kathleen Creighton) (08/13/90)
Since this is what I've done for a living for the last ten years, I can
speak with some authority here--we are called word processing operators.
--
Kathleen Creighton {pacbell,hplabs,apple,ucbvax}!well!casey
San Franciscothanatos@pro-graphics.cts.com (Steve Godun) (08/16/90)
In-Reply-To: message from franz@csuchico.edu
According to my classifications, a typist is one who works with the common
everyday typewriter (vague, I'll elaborate). If you sit down in front of a
typewriter, put in a piece of paper and type whatever you need to type, that's
"typing" and, hence, you're a typist. If you sit down in front of a computer
or a dedicated word processor and do whatever you need to do, you're a word
processor. What's the difference? Equipment and knowledge of that equipment,
mostly. Typists rarely have to deal with things like font changes, differences
in line length, justification, spelling and grammar checkers, etc.
ProLine: thanatos@pro-graphics | Ere sin could blight or sorrow fade,
UUCP: ...crash!pro-graphics!thanatos | Death came with friendly care.
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!thanatos@nosc.mil | The opening bud to Heaven conveyed,
Internet: thanatos@pro-graphics.cts.com | And bade it blossom there.