The Element of Making the Content More Readable

Please read topic (in attachments).Questions asked: Miller mentions the term "metaphor" a number of times in relation to this different writers. Why do you think he does so? What seems to be metaphor's significance to Miller? Do you agree that it is important, or not? Why?
Then my response. Then read both of my peers responses to topic. What you write: Tell what you like, agree with, if you have any questions ask them about each peers response. Keep them separate.
My response to topic: In Miller's article, he emphasized on the bits of lessons that a modern technical writer can get from classic writers such as Vitruvius, Frontinus, Smeaton, etc. He focused on how these writers delivered technical information in a more digestible and comprehensible manner. He believed that the success of these writers can be greatly credited to the “great variety of forms” that they employ, “especially in the way of handling definitions and descriptions of process apparatus, and theory”. Following from this, contrary to the common notion of readers that technical writers should be able to remove themselves and their subjective worldviews from what their writing, Miller emphasized the use of “energetic, rhythmical, and metaphorical parts” to convey the information easier and wider. More specifically in his article, you can notice his high regards for the use of ‘metaphorical phrases'. To start, he cited Vitruvius use of such technique in his book entitled 'Ten books of Architecture'. In one part of this series, he used excellent metaphors such as “knowledge is the child of practice and theory” to convey his message. Then, he moved on to Frontinus who also used the same technique in his work ‘Aqueducts of Rome' comparing the ‘slowing down' of the waters in the basin of the aqueduct with the terms ‘taking a fresh breath… after the run'. Another great metaphorical analysis according to him is used by Thomas Loudon McAdam who, unlike other writers of his time, termed the concrete roads as “roofs” rather than “carriers of traffics”.
Right now, it is already apparent that Miller gave a lot of importance to the metaphorical technique employed by any technical writer in communicating with his/her readers, and proved that point by citing the works of classical writers. He believed that in technical writing, occasional use of metaphors would most definitely help in removing the tedious parts can appear as less appealing to the readers, thus making it easier to convey the author's message. In my opinion, metaphors together with other figures of speech ‘can and should be used' even in a very objective piece of literature such as technical essays or books. This would make the reader anticipate something more than just solid information in the latter part of the books. However, as can be implied from Miller's article. This should be done in a way that would not digress too much from the scientific facts, but only something that would complement it.
Peer 1:
Miller's advocacy for the use of metaphor and other literary techniques stems from his belief that traditional technical writing doesn't incorporate style. Metaphor is one tool that can be used to liven a topic and make it readable to a broader audience. Miller believes that technical writing can be artful and that we don't have to be a lowly "perpetual parts-lister." Instead of just writing technical information full of jargon we can add a bit of ourselves to the text, make it more human. We can bring it to life by using a style that incorporates energy, imagery, and metaphor. Miller states that technical writing has lost the "art of connotation" which is needed to strengthen the "science of denotation."
A pitfall of this point of view is that is assumes the audience will accept and appreciate any stylistic freedom displayed in a technical piece of writing. If the audience is those that are employed in academia then they would likely have an appreciation for a more stylistic approach. What if the public in general is the audience? We have all seen poorly written technical instructions but do we think that adding metaphor to the mix would make it easier to follow for the masses?
There are mechanisms that can remediate this conundrum like employing the Frontinus detour where he directed the reader around a “jungle of thorny data.” Also the literary device known as the “double report form” utilized by Eads that addresses a mixed audience. Miller's intentions are admirable and his point of view is clear but there are those that just want to be fed the data, no fluff. In an effort to appease the mixed audiences of our work, we must have an understanding of the literary device we are using to convey technical information and to know our audience and their expectations.
Peer 2:
Miller's closing statements refer to the manner in which so many modern technical writers have foregone the approach of using metaphors inherent in the classics and have opted for the more impersonal approach that has come to dominate the field. He feels that is not necessary for technical writing to adhere to the bland, stringent rigidity of scientific objectivity that lends itself to abject impersonality. By implementing connotation into technical writing the writer is able to use metaphor to evoke a personal, if not emotional, response from the reader, making the hard, absolute, scientific facts that much more digestible. Miller illustrates how a strong metaphor can make a piece of technical writing easier for an audience to relate to. How well the audience relates to a piece can help garner support and reassure a nation after a catastrophic flood; make the concept of building a stone lighthouse easier to grasp; or change the way we people view the purpose of roads.
I am inclined to agree with Miller. This piece changed my perception of technical writing. I find it reassuring that just because the subject matter of a piece lends itself to a more scientific approach not all creativity need be brushed to the side in order to retain the integrity of the work.