TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: multiple TWs for a project From:"Bonnie Granat" <bgranat -at- worldnet -dot- att -dot- net> To:"Anthony Markatos" <tonymar -at- hotmail -dot- com>, "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Fri, 11 Feb 2000 02:16:42 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Markatos <tonymar -at- hotmail -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Friday, February 11, 2000 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: multiple TWs for a project
>Tony Markatos said:
>
>In properly chunked projects, all procedure to accomplish a given task will
>be together. (The end-user will not have to jump around between different
>sections of the documentation to accomplish the task.)
>
>In writing a properly chunked document, the TWs will not have to do a lot
of
>coordinating between themselves. It is in coordinating the different
chunks
>that major disagreements occur.
>
>Bonnie Granat asks:
>
>I didn't know there were two meanings of "chunking" in technical writing.
>I've only known the meaning of chunking as breaking apart information into
>small bits, both visually and logically.
>
>Tony Markatos responds:
>
>The logical way to chunk (break into smaller pieces) procedural information
>is by task. In this way the dependencies between the chunks are minimized.
>
Is your use of the word common? "Chunking" in my experience is about
presentation and layout only. Rather than repeat my initial comment, please
read it again.