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.
> I'm inclined to move away from the actual "reviving" verbs and refer to
> this procedure as a record-keeping task. I mean, we're really not
> killing some one or bringing them back to life with a simple
> click of a button, we're just recording the fact that someone died
> (or, in this case, correcting a mistake). I'm calling the kill-off
> procedure "Recording a death."
> So far, my titles for the ressurection procedure are along the lines
> of "Correcting an accidentally recorded death" or "Correcting a
> record coded as deceased." Those are closer to what I want, but I want
> to be clear that the act of recording the death was a mistake (and this
> procedure will fix it), as opposed to the death itself being a
> mistake.
-- or implying that the act of recording was in some way a mistake, but
that the person *is* nevertheless dead.
What a good question! I wish we fed each other this kind of question
all the time; solving challenges like this make me feel good about
being a tech writer. That and modifying the UI.
If you can get away from the death initially and use the heading
"Removing an incorrect record" or "Modifying an incorrect record," and
have Deaths be sub to that, you'd probably be OK.
I'll keep thinking, but let us know what you figure out.
Arthur Comings
GeoQuest
Corte Madera, California
atc -at- corte-madera -dot- geoquest -dot- slb -dot- com
