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.
> For the run-of-the-mill, commercial application help system, I think it
> would confuse the reader to use both terms. Such fine distinctions about
> relevance would probably be lost. What's more, a user who wants peripheral
> information is not likely to expect to find it in a specific topic. I
> would be more inclined to include only topics with a high level of
> relevance. Let users check the index or use Find if they want more general
> information. In a snense, all of the help topics for an application are
> relevant in some way, so you have to pick the level of relevance. You
> might think of a See Also link as being a method of categorizing
> information. If it doesn't allow users to narrow a field of information
> adequately, it isn't doing what it should do.
> Now, there may be systems with a level of complexity that requires fine
> distinctions or grades of relevance. I would choose some other label than
> See Also or More, since these are pretty vague descriptors.
> Bill Burns - Eccentric Technology Consultant
> INT'L.com Design & Development
> billdb -at- intl -dot- com
> "If I go to sleep, the clowns will eat me."