Re: Defining Terms (Was Re: Judging manuals (by themselves))

Subject: Re: Defining Terms (Was Re: Judging manuals (by themselves))
From: Bonni_Graham_at_Enfin-SD -at- PROTEON -dot- COM
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 13:31:00 EST

Steve Owens asks:

"Off on a tangent, your listing of reference/user/tutorial/quick-reference
inspires me to wonder:

What are the commonly accepted definitions of these terms?

And what other terms are there like this?"

The competition guidelines provide a brief (and I DO mean brief) description,
but they leave a lot out. They also allow some manual structures to fall
through the cracks. I'd love to see them "buffed" out.

I forget now who suggested it, but Ilike the idea of dividing by audience,
instead. And maybe by subject within that (since you can have an audience
that's expert at the subject matter but absolute novices at computing)? I
realize this makes picking judges difficult, but on the other hand, it might
encourage more people to judge. One of the most common demurrals I hear is "Oh,
I don't know enough to judge." Maybe if the categories were more concrete...

Good stuff, people. Keep it coming (I'm starting to get a real clear picture of
how I want to run the comp.)!

Bonni Graham |
Technical Writer | Most software is run by
Easel Corporation, ENFIN Technology Lab | confused users acting on
Bonni_Graham_at_Enfin-SD -at- relay -dot- proteon -dot- com | incorrect and incomplete
President, San Diego STC | information, doing things
| the designer never expected.
NOTE: apparently my email address needs |
to be typed exactly as it appears here, | --Paul Heckel, quoted
punctuation and all, or the system gets | by William Horton
upset. |

Previous by Author: Re: screen voltage
Next by Author: To anyone who has tried to reply to me
Previous by Thread: Defining Terms (Was Re: Judging manuals (by themselves))
Next by Thread: Defining Terms (Was Re: Judging manuals (by themselves))

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads