Re: Simple Verbiage Question

Subject: Re: Simple Verbiage Question
From: John Posada <jposada01 -at- YAHOO -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:40:57 -0700

Sorry...I didn't know it was a thread. I thought it
was thrown in as a fresh subject.

Correct. I would never use functionality in
documentation to warehouse workers.

Disclaimer: The following comment is only half
serious.

I worked with warehouse workers. I wouldn't use ANY
word that has more than 3 sylables or more than 6
letters, and I would use alot** of pictures.

** Sorry, couldn't help it :-) I DID see THAT post.

> As John Posada indicated, "functionality" has its
> place in writing for
> programmers. They make, use and understand a
> distinction between a
> "function" (count noun), a particular thing a
> program does, and
> "functionality" (mass noun), a set of stuff a
>
> In my opinion, the terms listed above are what make
> marketing literature
> sound overblown, and cause it to not be taken

Marketing literature has nothing to do with this. If
it appears in MarCom, it is bad writing just like
using any number of terms that we find in TechCom can
make a bad piece of techcom. Does finding poor words
in TecCom make all technical writing bad? No, just
instances of bad technical writing.

===
John Posada, Merck Research Laboratories
Sr Technical Writer, WinHelp and html
(work) john_posada -at- merck -dot- com
(pers) jposada01 -at- yahoo -dot- com
732-594-0873
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

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


Previous by Author: Re: Simple Verbiage Question
Next by Author: Re: Simple Verbiage Question
Previous by Thread: Re: Simple Verbiage Question
Next by Thread: Re: Simple Verbiage Question


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads