Re: best wording for cross references

[Carl Rudorf <crudorf -at- CCMGATE -dot- MBSBOOKS -dot- COM>]

Kelly:

Due to the size of our end user docs, I use see refs liberally. It's a genuine
source of navigational help. I prefer type C and in fact format it like so [ital
on] See [ital off] Blah Blah Blah, [ital on] page ch #. pg # [ital off]. (I've
automated the italics so it's really not as much of a hassle as it might at
first seem.)

So . . . are you in the process of developing a style? We're in the same boat,
but for the last couple years I've been moving more and more toward a consistent
style. It's time consuming -- reformatting legacy doc, *pleading* with others
who contribute to the pool of written info to -- *horrors* -- conform -- but our
users have responded positively. So I think it's worth the effort.

Good Luck!

carl rudorf
crudorf -at- mbsbooks -dot- com


    We don't have a style guide. We don't have enough consistency across
     docs, as a result. One area is cross references. Here are some
     examples I pulled:

     A   Turn to Leveling (ital) on page 18.

     B   For information on blah-blah-blah, refer to yadda-yadda-yadda.

     C   See "Solving Measurement Problems" on page 72.

     Should a page number be included? Excluded?

     One writer here prefers using example C. He feels 'Turn to' rhymes,
     and that's not good. (I did explain that there was no rhyme; it was
     actually the alliteration in 'Turn to' that he did not like.)

     A third writer here uses example B.

     What do your style guides say? What is your preference? Do any
     reference materials you use deal with cross reference format?

     Send responses to: kellyk -at- cyberoptics -dot- com

     Thanks.

     Kelly M. Kremin
     CyberOptics Corp
     Minneapolis MN