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 think the "corrected" version is technically more accurate because you're
discussing the amount of additional time, not the total time for the project.
--
Lisamarie Babik
lmbabik -at- winspc -dot- com
Documentation Specialist
DataNet Quality Systems
24567 Northwestern Highway
Fourth Floor
Southfield, MI 48075
(248)357-2200
-----Original Message-----
From: John Posada [SMTP:jposada01 -at- yahoo -dot- com]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 9:24 AM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: WAS: Squashed egos Now: 400% Longer
Hi, guys...I'd like to throw this out to the list...
Is this correction and explaination accurate? I'm not
attampting to dispute the person who sent me
this...the only reason I ask is that sometimes we make
similar statements in documentation and we/I may be
inaccurate in my math.
> > 4 months is 400% longer than 4 weeks...4 times
> > longer.
>
> Actually, John, 4 months is 300% longer than 4
> weeks, 3 times longer, or 4 times as long.
>
> Assuming 1 month equals 4 weeks:
> * One month is 0% longer than 4 weeks (1 time as
> long).
> * Two months is 100% longer than 4 weeks (2 times
> as long).
> * Three months is 200% longer than 4 weeks (3
> times as long).
> * Four months is 300% longer than 4 weeks (4 times
> as long).
