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.
>Anything that you can do to make technical information more
>inviting, less intimidating, and easier to read can't be
>a bad thing, now... Can it???
More inviting? How can contractions make information more inviting?
I am put off by forced and false familiarity in writing.
Less intimidating? Yes, I agree with this one. It is more intimidating
to write, for example:
WARNING: DO NOT stick your wet tongue in the empty light socket, even
if you think power is off!
than to write the homey:
Don't stick your wet tongue in the light socket or you'll be in for
a real shock.
Easier to read? I have a real problem with this one. Can you convince
me it is actually easier to read AND UNDERSTAND the following contractions
than their fully-written counterparts?
I'd, you'd, can't, I'll, would've.
Even English-speaking readers would have to spend a little more time
and effort to fully understand what you are writing. Foreign-born
readers may have to ask such questions as: *Don't: is that do not or
donut?* We can not (lack of contraction intentional) afford such
ambiguity in our writing.
For clarity, avoid contractions.
Regards,
Dave Demyan *** Mendem Concord, Inc.
(908) 753-8500 *** One Mountain Blvd.
concord -at- ix -dot- netcom -dot- com *** Warren, NJ 07059
FAX: (908) 754-8224
