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.
A couple of points I would like to respond to at one time.
--- Goober Writer <gooberwriter -at- yahoo -dot- com> wrote:
> Acronyms are not a means of just making typing easier,
> they are a means of quickly communicating info to
> others.
Then why is so much time spent explaining them? And why
is the hardest part of a new job learning the alphabet
soup of the new organization? And, if I had a nickel
(that's a five cent piece American) for everytime I
asked an old hand what a particular initialism meant
only to be met with a blank stare, I could have retired
five years ago.
> They are used in common speak. They are
> perfectly valid.
They why do they have to be explained? If they are
common, wouldn't readers automatically understand
them? I'm not questioning the validity of
initialisms. I'm merely suggesting that communication
would be clearer over all if they, like pronouns,
were drastically cut back.
> No one wants to read "HyperText
> Markup Language" over and over again, no one want's to
> say it over and over again.
How do you know that? Have you run any tests? I have, and
I admit that my results are purely anecdotal, but I have
found that reducing initialism use to that which may be
absolutely necessary for clarity, maybe a tenth of what
I used to do, reduces confusion in reviews and questions
from readers. Readers DON'T consult the Glossary very much.
Readers DON'T consult the Index very much. And Readers
DON'T remember an initialism, particularly one with which
they aren't already familiar, for more than a few pages.
> If you are using so many acronyms that you
> become confused or your confusae others, well, there's
> an audience and knowledge issue at play.
That's my point exactly! We have a LOT of audience and
knowledge issues at play when people consult our
documents only to be confronted with alphabet soup.
--- Janice Gelb <janice -dot- gelb -at- sun -dot- com> wrote:
> First of all, the acronyms you cite as causing reader
> confusion are not acronyms that I think are generally
> used in technical documentation. I mainly see them in
> email or list posts. I believe most people reading this
> type of email or message accept that people are striving
> for brevity and one soon gets used to the common acronyms.
You are correct that the acronyms I cited are not commonly
used in technical writing. I was using the shorthand of
Internet communications because they were the only examples
that came to mind that might have some degree of universality.
Had I used terms from the industry I'm currently documenting,
you would not have understood them. (And then several people,
unprompted by me, wrote in to inquire about one of those
so-called convenient shortcuts that we use.)
Oh, and I recommend the following example to those who think
"everybody knows what this acronym means." Go to http://acronymfinder.com and enter any common acronym and
see how many different possible answers you get for it.
Even FTP has multiple possible meanings. The writer's
meaning has to be garnered from context and an appropriate
background knowledge, but then that can trip the reader up,
too.
> Regarding technical documentation, our rule is that acronyms
> (except *exceedingly* common ones like CPU) should be written
> out on first usage.(etc.)
I suspect most of us have similar rules. I found that if I define
an acronym someplace in the document and don't use it again for
several pages, the reader has forgotten what it is or meant. I've
already commented on how I see readers using glossaries and indices.
I consider it a rule of thumb that if people only turn to the
documentation in desperation, they are really in deep doo-doo
when they turn to the back of the book (or the front) to look
something up.
> These rules should avoid reader confusion, and enable
> writers to use acronyms common to their industry and
> technology area.
Obviously, I am challenging these assumptions. If they avoided
confusion, we wouldn't have SMEs showing up in meetings asking
"What does DASD mean again?" or whatever.
I will concede that initialisms CAN improve readability. However,
my basic position remains that writers use them as shortcuts to
their writing rather than as aids to their readers. What I'm
suggesting is that you continue to write them, but make a pass
through your document and remove about 75% of them and see if
communication doesn't actually improve.
---
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 http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
