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.
I need your help to settle an argument with a writer in our group (yeah,
I'm the editor!). The issue is with bullet lists (versus numbers) for
all procedures in a software user guide.
The manual is packed with discrete little tasks, each connected to a
screen in the system. The problem (IMO) is that all steps are bulleted
(vs. numbered).
I maintain that each task MUST have (some kind of) sequence, i.e.
proceed (usually) linearally to its end - the goal of the task (i.e. why
the user wants to be there in the first place). Of course, I'm fully
aware of the variety of style found in documenting complicated tasks:
conditional action; also nonsequential action: continuous,
time-dependent, and concurrent (see "Procedure Writing: principles &
practices." Wieringa et al. Coloumbus: Battelle Press, 1993 for an
excellent study).
There's SOME of this in this manual, but certainly not ALL.
The writer, a long-time purveyor of the information set, argues that the
information (specifically each screen & task set) may be accessed from
'so many different places and points in the system,' that there's really
NO SEQUENCE AT ALL.
Finally, my response is that such a system (represented by the
documentation) would be UNteachable, UNusable, UNworkable, even
UNknowable! (and this is a very old, reliable FedEx sys).
I don't want to be an autocrat (my way or the highway!) here, so any
rational advice is appreciated.
