RE: ISO follies redux

Subject: RE: ISO follies redux
From: "Margaret Secara" <margaret -dot- secara -at- alphather -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 08:21:38 -0800

>>> "Steve Hudson" <cruddy -at- optushome -dot- com -dot- au> 03/08/02 12:11AM >>>

Finally (what you originally asked for and no-one has provided yet), a
reasonable argument against full justification goes like this:

No novels use it.
No technical manuals use it.
No magazines use it.
Very few newspapers use it anymore.

Actually, novels use full justification all the time. At least all the ones in my house do. Many magazines do too. (I'm looking at a copy of *Pharmaceutical Technology* at the moment. I don't like it in technical manuals, although I'm stuck with it for SOPs around here.

Just clarifying the argument.

Maggie Secara

Check it out! Get some cool freebies when you buy RoboHelp! You'll receive
SnagIt screen capture software and a 10% discount voucher for RoboHelp
Consulting. This special offers expires March 29, 2002.

Have you looked at the new content on TECHWR-L lately?
See and check it out.

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.

Previous by Author: Q: UK tech writer salaries
Next by Author: Re: [Reference books you use the most]
Previous by Thread: RE: ISO follies (justifying text)
Next by Thread: True insignificance

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

Sponsored Ads