RE. Is "errata" too antiquated?

Subject: RE. Is "errata" too antiquated?
From: "Hart, Geoff" <Geoff-H -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>
To: "Techwr-L (E-mail)" <TECHWR-L -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 08:33:52 -0400

Darren Barefoot is <<...going to include a photocopied "errata" sheet in the
box with the manual. ... is "Errata" still a commonly used and understood
term? I'm inclined to instead go with something like "Changes and
Omissions", but my colleague asserts that Errata is the le mot juste for
this sheet.>>

"Errata" is certainly correct, and should be easy to look up in any
reasonably good dictionary, but it's more useful in specialized (e.g.,
academic or literary) circles. For a general audience, "corrections" or
"updates and omissions" is easier; among other things, not everyone in a
typical office has access to a good dictionary, and it's rarely a good idea
to use the $100 word when the $1 word works just as well.

--Geoff Hart, FERIC, Pointe-Claire, Quebec
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

"Technical writing... requires understanding the audience, understanding
what activities the user wants to accomplish, and translating the often
idiosyncratic and unplanned design into something that appears to make
sense."--Donald Norman, The Invisible Computer

Previous by Author: Converting paper documentation to Web format?
Next by Author: Documenting a product with no specifications?
Previous by Thread: RE: No specifications
Next by Thread: Re: APPLY FOR THE JOB? (Was: Misguided Love)

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads