Re: TECHWR-L Digest - 12 Jan 1999 to 13 Jan 1999

["Hyde, Barb # IHTUL" <Barb -dot- Hyde -at- TULSA -dot- CISTECH -dot- COM>]

> ----------
> From:         Automatic digest
> processor[SMTP:LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU]
> Reply To:     Technical Writers List; for all Technical Communication
> issues
> Sent:         Thursday, January 14, 1999 12:00 AM
> To:   Recipients of TECHWR-L digests
> Subject:      TECHWR-L Digest - 12 Jan 1999 to 13 Jan 1999
>
> Kate:
> It sounds like an uphill, if not hopeless, battle to me. If your
> instructional designers are so in love with their construction that they
> can't see the Procedure is superfluous in a guide that contains nothing
> but, your arguments are not going to make much difference.
>
> That said, try this argument: This audience is in front of you
> because they are neophytes. You are in front of them because we want them
> to become confident, competent users, not to impress/intimidate them with
> techno-talk. When headings are written in natural language, they serve as
> a bridge between the student and the new task to be learned. 'Note
> Addition
> Procedure' is inflated techno-talk for the real-world task of  'Adding a
> Note.'  Students will respond much more confidently to  'Adding a Note.'
>
> Barb Hyde
> Wind at your back
>
> >Kate Schommer writes:
> >Tech writers in my department like to use the gerund form for headings
> >in our manuals:  "Adding a Note."  However, our instructional designers
> >have insisted that we use the form "Note Adding", or even better, "Note
> >Addition", so that they can tack the word "Procedure" on the end in the
> >related training materials.
> >Can anyone support my argument that "Procedure"
> >is unnecessary in an OJT training guide that consists of nothing BUT
> >procedures?
>


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