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.
Bonnie wrote: "It is easier (takes less time) to read and process "Figure 5"
than it does to read and process the title."
I think a cross reference needs to convey what type of information it's
referring to. "Figure 5" doesn't convey anything about what figure 5
illustrates. For that, you need a well-written title or description.
Possibilities include:
- For details, see Figure 5, "The Creation of the Earth" on page 123
- For an illustration of the creation of the Earth, see page 123.
I would hazard a guess that these contsructions work because they tell the
reader what type of information you're referring to, then what the
information is, and then where it is. This gives the reader an opportunity
to not finish parsing the sentence if the type of information doesn't suit
her needs (e.g. I don't need a picture, I need a definition, so I'm going to
carry on), or if the information itself does not suit her needs (e.g. I need
a picture, but not a picture of the creation of the Earth, so I'm going to
carry on).
Has anyone studied cognitive processes enough to support or deny what I'm
pulling directly out of my a....ummmm, what I'm guessing at?
