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: N -at- ming symbols? Just s -at- y no! From:Timothy Notzon <tmno -at- DYNEGY -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:50:37 -0500
I've always interpreted "@" to mean "at or about" - hence the circle drawn
around the letter "a". To each his own?
Tim Notzon
---------------------- Forwarded by Timothy M Notzon/NGCCorp on 04/22/99 03:42
PM ---------------------------
Tom Johnson <johnsont -at- STARCUTTER -dot- COM> on 04/22/99 11:49:04 AM
Please respond to Tom Johnson <johnsont -at- STARCUTTER -dot- COM>
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
cc: (bcc: Timothy M Notzon/NGCCorp)
Subject: Re: N -at- ming symbols? Just s -at- y no!
Geoff,
You make a good point... for printed material. What do you do when trying to
convey @ orally?
Tom Johnson
Elk Rapids, Michigan - On the freshwater coast
johnsont -at- starcutter -dot- com work
thomasj -at- freeway -dot- net personal
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Hart [SMTP:Geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 8:18 AM
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Subject: N -at- ming symbols? Just s -at- y no!
I missed this thread's start, so I'm probably replying out of context,
but it occurs to me that it wouldn't be very useful to try to come up
with the name for a symbol that you use in your documentation
(though it's a perfectly useful exercise, perhaps, in wordplay and
etymology).
If you need to describe a symbol in docs, present it as the symbol
and don't worry about naming it. "Type the @ symbol" is much
clearer than "type the 'at' symbol" or "type the script a with a
swash around it" because the @ relates much more strongly and
visually to the symbol the user will seek on the keyboard. By
avoiding naming it, you avoid introducing a whole layer of
abstraction between the symbol and its physical representation,
which strikes me as a very good thing indeed. Moreover, this
approach avoids obvious problems with regional differences in the
naming of symbols; for example, # is variously called the
octothorpe, the pound sign, the number sign, and the hash mark,
and picking any one is sure to confuse some portion of your
audience, even if only briefly.
