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.
> - Does anyone really believe that they risk losing credibility by using
"start"
> instead of "boot"?
Yes. I do. Because I can see through dumb little "friendlisms" and so can
a lot of geeks. Its a waste of time. Just say boot and be done with it.
Don't try to sugar coat the issue and make it nice.
> - Does anyone really believe that writing clearly automatically equates
with
> writing down to technical readers?
I can - it depends on how you do it. A lot of writers overly wordsmith
things and cause them to lose the original meaning.
You can write to technical audiences and be very clear. But you also need
to be cognizant that overly-polishing things will sometimes mask the
obvious. To boot a computer has a very specific meaning. You can start
lots of things - but you can only boot a computer.
> To take the specific first, "start" is a neutral word, and used just as
often as
> "boot" by techies. At the risk of bogging down in an example that may
not be a
> particularly good one, I seriously doubt that techies would notice
which one
> was used.
You're probably right. Most techies wouldn't notice or care. But they may
in other areas. "boot" vs. "start" is awfully simplistic. But if you spend
an inordinate amount of energy polishing off all the edges in a document,
you risk alienating more savvy audience members.
Also - think of documentation as a sales tool. If the docs speak to geeks,
it may impress them enough to recommend the technology. If the docs are
polished nonsense, the geeks won't be impressed and you'll lose the sale.
> Making a distinction between information and clarity is a false
dichotomy.
> Technical writers are supposed to provide both.
Agreed. But information can be dramatically "soiled" by over-wordsmithing
and grammar nazis. You risk losing nuance and alienating more technically
oriented readers. If you polish the hell out of every sentence, it may
sound great to other writers - but the nerds behind the scenes won't go
for it. It will turn them off.
Andrew Plato
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Announcing new options for IPCC 01, October 24-27 in Santa Fe,
New Mexico: attend the entire event or select a single day.
For details and online registration, visit http://ieeepcs.org/2001
Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
