I'm a tech writer. It's what I do; but there are times when I'm a bit uncomfortable with calling myself a "technical writer." The term is often associated with writing manuals for high tech products that are very high level and often useless. Or worse, a "documentation specialist." That sounds about as dramatic as a tax manual and equally cumbersome.

Those are the opposite of what a good technical writer is.

I'm neither a fan of arcane writing any more than I enjoy reading a tome when all I want to do is learn what I need to in order to get on with more important things. I know I'm not alone in that.
One of my light bulb moments was hearing Maya Angelou apologize for the length of an Inaugural Poem being too long, and that if she had more time, it would have been shorter. Content -- what often gets called "documentation" -- shouldn't be epic, whether it's a complete guide on how to use software or a business process. I often spend a lot more time re-shaping what I've written than I do the first draft. It's not that I find writing hard, it's that I want to make sure whatever I'm working on is not just informative, but user friendly. Not just for others, but for me.

It's essential to balance information with usefulness -- and usability. I usually know a lot more about a subject than ends up in my work. But I'm also equally focused on making sure it's presented in an easily accessible way that helps the intended reader get the information they need quickly and easily, and re-find it when they need to.

At Lavacon 2011, I was pleasantly surprised to hear so many other "tech writers" not only stress the importance of clear communication, but on the importance of content that has impact. Lavacon's Jack Molisani mentioned that one particular friend who's a tech writer describes what she does as "solving business problems."  That's probably the most accurate way of describing what I do.