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'm with you. We never use "1" for a single step. A "1" always implies a
"2". Nobody starts counting with "one" and stays there. "One" is intuitively
obvious. If nothing else, using some other mechanism for a single step cues
the reader that this is a special, one-step case. I'd even be in favor of a
heading "This process has only one step." Readers can't have too many cues.
Tim Altom
Simply Written, Inc.
Featuring FrameMaker and the Clustar Method(TM)
"Better communication is a service to mankind."
317.562.9298 http://www.simplywritten.com
>> I still don't buy it. The number "1." for a step is a multipurpose
>> identifier that clarifies there is only one step <snip>
>
>To me it does just the opposite... having a step 1 implies there will be a
step
>2. I'd end up looking for step 2, wondering if my manual was defective,
calling
>the company and complaining, and boring people for years to come with the
story
>of the manual that only had step 1... but that's just me.
>
