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.
I would let the figures number sequentially, and allude to the fact that
the second one is a duplicate. In the past, I have used three pieces to
identify and describe figures: figure numbers, figure captions, and
figure descriptions. The figure captions were brief and in bold type;
they served only to identify the figure, e.g., Spacely Sprocket
Schematic. The figure descriptions were longer, and not in bold. I used
the descriptions to explain the figures, and give any other pertinent
information. You could follow a scheme like that, and explain in the
description that you have duplicated the image for the reader's
convenience.
HTH
Jo
LDurway -at- pav -dot- com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I have a figure showing a flow chart.
> Ten pages later I want to ... to reproduce the flow chart figure exactly as it was before Where I'm stuck is in
> deciding how to handle the figure caption and number.
