Re: Code Annotation of the Week

Subject: Re: Code Annotation of the Week
From: Keith Hood <klhra -at- yahoo -dot- com>
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com, Robert Lauriston <robert -at- lauriston -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:50:27 -0800 (PST)

I think it would have been worse conduct for the tech writer to unilaterally pass judgment on the "fitness" of somebody's else's code. It would have been truly unprofessional if he had decided on his own to omit or bowdlerize the language. That would have been censorship, not documenting.

He gave the other people concerned, who were perhaps even more responsible, a chance to handle it separately or decide on a different course of action. His supervisor did not tell him to change the wording or omit mention of it. The tech writer followed his orders and did what was expected of him. If there is anyone to be castigated for using improper language or for unprofessional behavior, it would be the other people, not the tech writer who documented the error message.

--- On Wed, 11/11/09, Robert Lauriston <robert -at- lauriston -dot- com> wrote:

> From: Robert Lauriston <robert -at- lauriston -dot- com>
> Subject: Re: Code Annotation of the Week
> To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 11:59 AM
> And her own boss thought it was OK?
> It's unprofessional to parrot something that clearly
> shouldn't be seen
> by customers.
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:33 PM,  <quills -at- airmail -dot- net>
> wrote:
> > It was a proper error message linked to an error code.
> That the error would
> > not appear because the machine would have melted into
> slag first was
> > irrelevant. She would have gotten into more trouble
> not documenting the
> > error message. As it was, she did talk first to the
> programmer, who didn't
> > see a problem, and then to his first line supervisor,
> who like-wise didn't
> > see a problem.
> >
> > Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Are you looking for one documentation tool that does it all? Author,
build, test, and publish your Help files with just one easy-to-use tool.
Try the latest Doc-To-Help 2009 v3 risk-free for 30-days at:

Help and Manual 5: The all-in-one help authoring tool. Full support for
team authoring with multi-user editing - both directly and in combination
with VSS-compatible source control systems.

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit

To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:


Re: Code Annotation of the Week: From: Robert Lauriston

Previous by Author: Re: Doc Design and Convention - to address Gene's take on this
Next by Author: Association of Professional Business Writers (APBW)
Previous by Thread: Re: Code Annotation of the Week
Next by Thread: Re: Code Annotation of the Week

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

Sponsored Ads