Re: figure references

[John Posada <john -at- TDANDW -dot- COM>]

Rebecca...I usually create graphic intensive documentation and also tend
toward a two column format, text running down left side and graphics running
down right side.  However, I also reference the  graphic in the text.

A few reasons.

- As you said in the message, "usually, the picture needed for the text..."
What about the exception. If you'd said "ALWAYS, the picture..." then maybe
it would be less necessary. Think of it as not referencing for the times
that it is opposite, but for the exceptions that it's not.

- Aside from it being a little more work, why not. You boss wants it, it's
normal, some readers may expect, etc.

I'd go for it.

John Posada



>My new boss (huzzah!) has all the Right Feelings about technical
>documentation... which is to say, on most points, he agrees with me.
>He's actively interested in improving our documentation, which is
>great.
>
>There's one area that I'm not so sure of what current Good Practice
>is.  Our documents are very graphic intensive... our format is
>2-columns, one for text, the other for graphics, of which 3 fit on a
>page.
>
>The question I have is... do we need text references to all these
>pictures? usually, the picture needed for the text is directly
>opposite the text.  In the documents I've inherited, they only used
>references to graphics for pictures that weren't directly opposite the
>text.  My boss wants in-text references to *every* picture, even
>things like an over-all shot of the machine with callouts defining the
>parts of the machine and location of controls that are referred to
>frequently in the general text.

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=