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: It did happen on a Friday... From:"Edwin Skau" <edskau -at- hotmail -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:22:57 +0530
>>> The question isn't whether the doc will be read by a slave. It's whether
it will be read by a lot of people (not just one) who would be offended by
the term. If they're offended, then I don't care whether their reaction is
justified.
Their reaction is a barrier to clear communication. I should avoid that
reaction by using another word that clearly communicates my intent.
My job is not to teach people how to react emotionally to various words. My
job is to communicate clearly about technical matters.
>>>>
Hi,
I haven't come across engineers who have problems with terms like: slave,
master, manager, abort, kill, terminate, or convert.
We're the people who have the time, inclination and the rhetoric to build
them into issues.
Do we have data on the effects of these terms on people's ability to
understand information and use it effectively? Or is this just language
politics?
