RE: Minimalist or low-level?

Subject: RE: Minimalist or low-level?
From: "Steve Hudson" <cruddy -at- optushome -dot- com -dot- au>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 22:13:18 +1100

Much ROFLing at a beautiful style, but still, I must protest heartily at the
following claims:

> The reason most of us read the manual

is to look productive when the big bosses walk past OR sound authorative
when talking about anything remotely connected with the book. Otherwise we
consult the online help... <snicker>

> Didn't Dante put vague procedure writers in the second or third circle of

The second so as to misdirect the rest of the way into going deeper as a
good thing. Mind you, the MS writers (poor Paul) are consigned to the 9th
level, being close to the dark one himself - but we digress.

> Be creatively redundant. Remember the reader
most likely has their mind on several other things while they are reading
your manual.

Ding ding ding ding ding. Disagree. Hyperlinks (cross-references or whatever
you care) baby, and nothing else. When said function gets updated, are you
going to visit ONE place, or try and remember which 10? Or was it 11? Damn!
Let alone experienced users can avoid the x-ref if they know it intimately,
leaving them with the gritty bits. Encapsulate and link.

Steve Hudson - Word Heretic, Sydney, Australia
For Questions regarding MS-Word please use the MS news servers or a mailing
list in preference to heretic -at- tdfa -dot- com -dot- Ideally, post to and send me an email to go answer it.

Now's a great time to buy RoboHelp! You'll get SnagIt screen capture
software and a $200 onsite training voucher FREE when you buy RoboHelp
Office or RoboHelp Enterprise. Hurry, this offer expires February 28, 2002.

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.


Re: Minimalist or low-level?: From: Brad Jensen

Previous by Author: Sweet words
Next by Author: RE: Minimalist or low-level?
Previous by Thread: Re: Minimalist or low-level?
Next by Thread: Re: Minimalist or low-level?

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

Sponsored Ads