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.
Another way to do it would be to say "optional (step/requirement:)" at
the beginning of the step/requirement, then use standard wording.
Otherwise there's a lot of room for misinterpretation.
And make sure the content is broken out into bullets or single line
paragraphs instead of solid blocks. I've seen situations where the
coders couldn't do even as well as I could to pull everything out of
the requirements (mostly because I had to pay attention so much just
to figure out what was going on :-)
Coders may rule, but they're still human ...
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Dan Goldstein
<DGoldstein -at- riveraintech -dot- com> wrote:
> I'm working with Development on a very large set of design requirements.
> There are many requirements that describe the software ("RCP") either
> allowing or requiring an action by the user. There was some question as
> to whether "allow" would be understood as an optional action, as in:
> "The RCP shall allow the user to schlep the pekele," i.e., the user may
> choose to schlep the pekele but doesn't have to.
> One suggestion was: "The RCP shall optionally allow the user to schlep
> the pekele," or similarly, "The RCP shall allow the user to optionally
> schlep the pekele." But I don't like either of those very much.
> I'm looking for something just as concise but a little less awkward.
> "The RCP shall allow the user the option of schlepping the pekele"
> sounds a little better to me, but I hate to turn a robust infinitive
> into a namby-pamby gerund.
> This message contains confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing, copying, electronic storing or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. ÂIf you have received this message by mistake, please notify us, by replying to the sender, and delete the original message immediately thereafter. ÂThank you.
> Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help. Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need.
> Try Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.
> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as kathleen -dot- eamd -at- gmail -dot- com -dot-
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
>http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.
> Looking for articles on Technical Communications? ÂHead over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com
> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? ÂSearch our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
kathleen -dot- eamd -at- gmail -dot- com
Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help. Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need.
Try Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.