Re: Yahoo has no staff tech writers

["Bonnie Granat" <bgranat -at- editors-writers -dot- info>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Byfield" <bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Cc: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Yahoo has no staff tech writers


>
> Bonnie Granat wrote:
>
> > Because grammar exists only to support the communication of intended
> > meaning, I can't conceive of something being "technically accurate"
and
> > ungrammatical.
>
> Consider what you do when you come across a typo, a spelling mistake,
or
> the occasional disagreement between subject and predicate (you only
have
> to check some of the posts I've dashed off without checking them to
this
> list). Is the meaning of the sentence really so delicate that a single
> grammatical lapse forces it to collapse into gibberish?

In highly technical material, the answer is "yes". Even here on this
list, I interpret repeated sloppiness as inconsiderateness. We all make
mistakes, but the consistent disregard for readers means the writer has
little care for the experience of his or her readers. Errors cut down
comprehension, regardless of their size. One might say, "Oh, it's just a
little thing and I'm not going to take the time to fix it before I send
it to the list." But many readers will stumble and find reading that
poster's messages to be unpleasant -- too much work for the value.




Of course not.
> You make a mental adjustment, possibly you start a sentence over
again,
> and you move on. Clearly, it's completely possible to be technically
> accurate and ungrammatical.
>

I do not trust instructions written like that, and I do not agree that
it is acceptable. In some cases, sure, the meaning won't be lost, but in
others, it will. Regardless, on what basis should I trust instructions
written by someone and approved by someone else that are ungrammatical?
If they haven't the sense to write properly, am I not being foolish to
trust their judgement in anything else?


> That's not to say that error-free copy isn't the best way to
> communicate.If nothing else, you don't want to alienate readers by
> making them But a passage can have a large number of grammatical
> mistakes and still be comprehensible; any instructor who has survived
> marking first year university papers can vouch for that claim.

Yes, I agree. But that attitude may be responsible for why we have
people who post here who present themselves as technically savvy, yet
they cannot write a simple sentence without messing up spelling,
punctuation, or grammar.  I've read some of their "work" and it stinks.
I wouldn't trust them to tell me how
to feed the dog.




>
> I think of grammatical errors as static on a radio. While a clear
signal
> is desirable, meaning can still survive a good deal of static.
>
>

I think we agree more than we disagree, Bruce!


Bonnie Granat
http://www.editors-writers.info




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Buy ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 6.0, the most powerful SINGLE SOURCE HELP
AUTHORING TOOL for MS Word. SAVE $100 on the full version and $50 on the
upgrade.  Offer ends 10/31/2002 (code: DTH102250).
http://www.componentone.com/d2hlist1002

All-new RoboHelp X3 is now shipping! Get single sourcing, print-quality
documentation, conditional text and much more, in the most monumental
release ever. Save $100! Order online at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l

---
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.