RE: Tracking off

[Mike Stockman <stockman -at- jagunet -dot- com>]

On 12/15/99 5:11 AM, John -dot- Sheridan-Smith -at- bmwfin -dot- com 
(John -dot- Sheridan-Smith -at- bmwfin -dot- com) wrote:

>Too much info can lead some readers (whose behaviou CAN be predicted by
>suitable analysis) to fail to read or absorb the RELEVANT info.

I disagree. Too much information can never "lead" readers to fail to 
absorb relevant info; poorly organized and presented information may, 
however, hide the important information while emphasizing the stuff you 
don't want.

"Suitable analysis" may tell you that a simple seven-procedure is more 
accessible than a tightly-packed page of technobabble, but if you 
organize the technobabble correctly, and rewrite it so it is presented 
more clearly, I'd bet money that your "suitable analysis" will show that 
it's just as accessible as the simple procedure.

Of course, that part takes a lot more effort and skill than simply 
leaving information out.

>Also, there are many situations where the person paying the writer
>legitimately (but so what if it's illegitmately - he's paying) wants
>to restrict the amount of information given to specific groups of 
>readers to prevent those readers from using the information to do things
>that the writer-payer does not want done.

Nobody anywhere in this thread has suggested ignoring the wishes of 
clients, so your point here, while valid, has no relevance to the 
theoretical discussion of whether to spend more time writing for an 
audience vs. ensuring technical accuracy.

For the record, I come down squarely on the side of making wholly 
accurate information accessible to anyone. 

Hope this helps,
----->Mike

_______________________________________________________________________
Internet: stockman -at- jagunet -dot- com                           AOL: MStockman
                                       AOL Instant Messenger: MStockman