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.
Subject:Re: Clarification on Text Styles From:STaylor <sntaylor -at- STARTEXT -dot- NET> Date:Fri, 12 Dec 1997 21:48:29 -0600
In my last note about only 2 faces, I meant two faces. But it max's out to
3 text styles. I like the clean look.
At 08:42 AM 12/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I've sure appreciated the responses to my trolling for discussion on
>multiple text styles. However, it's evident that a little clarification
>might be in order.
>First, some definitions:
>Text styles refer to the type face, point size, leading, indentation and
>font of text. <Arial, 12 pt, 6 pt above, 6 pt below, flush left, regular>
>would be a text style, just as we see in Word or Wordperfect style sheets.
>Type faces are the font family -- Arial, Times New Roman, Garamond, Bodoni,
>Mistral, and so on.
>Fonts are the collections of individual letters within a type face,
>so-named from the old days of hand-setting of lead type when the individual
>metal letters were kept in partitioned trays called "fonts". A font is a
>set of letters of one type face or size. Arial Bold 12 pt is a font; so is
>Arial Italic 10 pt. That's why you can buy 600 fonts on a disk and only get
>about 40 type faces.
>Leading ("ledding") refers to the spacing between lines of type. After the
>typesetters laid down a line of type, they'd add a strip of lead in the
>appropriate point size underneath to provide spacing between that line and
>Quite a few folks wrote and cautioned against "ransom-note" publishing -- a
>kindergarten publisher's error. (Oooh - Let's use Rockabilly for our
>headings!!). Thanks, but my concern goes much deeper than that. This
>affects a "standard" practice among technical writers/publishers.
>There is widespread use, among software manual writers, of different text
>styles, apart from headings and body text, to indicate each of: what the
>user types in, what the computer responds with, what code looks like,
>possible error messages, and more. In a long document with meaty paragraphs
>and few bulleted or numbered sections, it doesn't look that bad. The
>thinking has been that users need the visual cues to differentiate between,
>say, the name of a menu item and what they type in. You might have a line
>that reads something like: "Click File / Open, type in
>c:\directory\filename, click OK and you will see your document Filename in
>the Editor window." File / Open might be in Arial bold;
>c:\directory/filename in Times bold italic; OK in Arial bold; and Filename
>in Times bold.
>These text styles are the conventions used in the manual to "help" the user
>distinguish among interface and procedural elements.
>I'm proposing that it is not at all necessary. In the example sentence I
>just gave you, the multiple type styles are certainly overkill. But I see
>it time and again. On the surface, different type styles seems like a good
>idea, but what looks fine in the "conventions" section can back you into a
>corner when to remain consistent you have to use all of those type styles
>in one sentence or on one small page. The manual I reviewed yesterday had
>11 type styles on one 9 x 6" page! And this HELPS the user? I think not.
>I've stopped doing it. The "Conventions Used in this Manual" section of our
>user guides is GONE. Instead, I use more white space (leading and
>indentation). I still use a sans serif type face for headings, and a serif
>type face for body text. Italics and bold are used *sparingly* for
>emphasis. I use rules (that's "lines" for the typographically-challenged),
>callouts and boxes where appropriate.
>How about the rest of you software writers?
>Senior Technical Writer, InSystems Technologies Inc.
>65 Allstate Parkway, Suite 100 Tel: (905) 513-1400 ext. 280
>Markham, Ontario, Canada L3R 9X1 Fax: (905) 513-1419
>mailto:bagnew -at- insystems -dot- com Visit us at: http://www.insystems.com
>See my friendly face at: