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.
Subject:RE: Need a word From:"Combs, Richard" <richard -dot- combs -at- Polycom -dot- com> To:"Butler, Darren J Ctr 584 CBSS/GBHAC" <Darren -dot- Butler -dot- ctr -at- Robins -dot- af -dot- mil>, <tech -dot- writer1 -at- verizon -dot- net>, <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:31:12 -0700
Butler, Darren J wrote:
> > A task is _what_ to do; a procedure is _how_ to do it. To
> complete a task, you follow one or more procedures. And a set of steps
> is a procedure.
> True, but I don't see how that is much different from what
> Joyce and I suggested. I'm not sure where is the gap?
You both defined a set of steps as a task and eliminated "procedure." I
disagree. Performing the steps is how one _proceeds_ to accomplish the
task; thus, a _procedure_.
I realize I'm being a curmudgeonly old pedant, but I still insist that
words aren't arbitrarily chosen collections of sounds/syllables. They
represent concepts that relate to each other, often through a shared
concept that's apparent from the shared root of the words. Thus, a
procedure is how one proceeds; a task is not.
> >There's no need for the complexity and vagueness of "sub steps"
> "sub steps" are complex *and* vaugue?
> Could you explain further?
I find "sub step" vague in this context because it's an artificial
construct that's being used in place of the right word (as I noted
above, there *is* a right word for how one proceeds). We could call
tasks "payoffs," procedures "struggles," and steps "moves," but would
that help or hinder understanding?
You suggested "sub steps" because in the situation tech.writer1
described, procedures were mislabeled "steps," so she/he needed a new
word for the steps themselves. It would be clearer to the reader to call
a procedure a procedure and not have to introduce a new term for a step.
I find "sub step" complex because even when used in the right context,
it's almost always an unnecessary devolution of "step." Steps 1, 2, and
3 are steps; but so are steps 1, 2a, 2b, and 3. There's simply no need
to subdivide the category (unless you're discussing formats/styles,
Remember: "I never lie and I'm always right." ;-)
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-