Abstract
Examining the limitations of some common metaphors for technical communication and exploring new alternatives lead to a new definition of technical communication. In current studies of the field, four metaphors appear dominant through explicit or implicit use: transmitter, channel, balance, and bridge. But each of these metaphors is limited in some way when used to describe the field. These limitations arise from complexity, directionality, or originality of the process. Some alternatives provide a new way of viewing the field: lock, translator, transformer, synthesizer, conductor, and orchestrator. The latter term leads to a tentative definition of the field: Technical communication is the process of orchestrating linguistic, visual, or auditory codes to accommodate information to the user.