Janine Chan - Seven habits of increasingly technical technical writers

Technical writers (and anyone moving from “good” to “great”) become more capable not by collecting a pile of courses or waiting for a confidence milestone, but by building a habit of learning how to learn. Janine Chan’s central claim is that “technical” isn’t a fixed identity or a single skill toggle; it’s what happens when people train themselves to pursue knowledge, ask better questions, and keep experimenting—especially when they feel behind.

Chan frames her own path as a counterexample to the usual career narrative. An English degree didn’t come with deep technical training, and her early work didn’t magically erase gaps. Yet she eventually landed a senior technical writing role at Data Dog after passing a code test, and the missing link wasn’t a secret credential—it was learning to teach herself. That “hot take” becomes the backbone of seven habits aimed at tech writers, instructional designers, developers, and “neat people” who want to level up.

The first habit targets identity traps. People often write “I am not technical,” turning a skill gap into a permanent self-description. Chan urges a different phrasing: “I can’t do this particular thing yet,” which keeps the problem specific and time-bound. That mindset shift—growth over fixed—matters because it prevents people from mentally boxing themselves into “non-technical” categories.

Next comes a practical emotional pivot: when overwhelm hits, redirect it into curiosity. Deadlines and unfamiliar features can trigger an overwhelm spiral that blocks progress. Curiosity, by contrast, turns uncertainty into a reason to investigate, collaborate, and ask questions. Chan recommends breaking large knowledge gaps into smaller ones (like separating pie into crust, goo, and baking steps) so questions become manageable.

As those gaps become specific, the third habit is learning to ask for help without guilt. Chan argues that requesting information makes someone a better colleague: it improves credibility, models human behavior, and helps teams understand where answers come from. She offers a structured Slack-question template—describe context, what’s already been considered, where the writer is stuck, what they hope to learn, why they’re asking that person, and an explicit acknowledgement of the other person’s time.

The fourth habit is low-stakes tinkering. Learning technical skills accelerates when people try things locally, with safe guardrails, and treat mistakes as data rather than shame. Chan illustrates this with a lesson from Benjamin Zander, who reframes errors as “fascinating” and actionable—decoupling shame from performance so learners keep going.

The remaining habits reinforce momentum: notice that admired people also struggle with impostor syndrome; avoid perfectionism that delays useful drafts; and be honest about whether the “learn-by-not-knowing” process is energizing or draining for you. If it’s draining, she says, it’s valid to choose easier work or different environments.

Chan closes by tying change to identity and responsibility—admitting that growth feels hard because it challenges what people assume they can do, but arguing that daily opportunities to become “smarter, kinder, more compassionate, more inclusive” are part of what it means to be alive.