Re: Technical Writing - What's the catch?

[Lou Quillio <quillio -at- gmail -dot- com>]

On Mar 31, 2005 10:47 PM, David Neeley <dbneeley -at- gmail -dot- com> wrote:
> No, I would definitely *not* agree that Orwell's rules are nearly as
> universal as you seem to believe.

Not universal literally, universal in spirit.  Orwell assumes we are
competent and know our audience.

> If you are writing for sixth graders, perhaps...but technical writing
> for a technical audience would not eschew "scientific" words where
> appropriate, as just one example.

Ahh, 'cmon, that's just Orwell's dated language.  Orwell, down and out
in Paris and London, would've certainly adapted to the needs of
commercial writing work meant to pay the rent, and did.

(Eschew?)

> "3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out."
> 
> Seems to me that "out" should have been cut both times.

And there it is.  The two occurences of "out" punctuate the axiom.  In
this case, thirteen words are just a little more memorable than
eleven, and worth it.

Six extra letters, working hard.

LQ

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT - EDIT AND REVIEW, REDEFINED
Accelerate the document lifecycle with full online discussions and unique feedback-management capabilities. Unlimited, efficient reviews for Word
and FrameMaker authors. Live, online demo:
http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.