RE: wording q - is "both" superfluous?

Subject: RE: wording q - is "both" superfluous?
From: "Porrello, Leonard" <lporrello -at- illumina -dot- com>
To: "Combs, Richard" <richard -dot- combs -at- Polycom -dot- com>, Monique Semp <monique -dot- semp -at- earthlink -dot- net>, TechWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:07:00 +0000

Good point, Richard. I would add that if the introductory sentence doesn't make the matter clear enough, it sounds as if the user can easily test the two options to see how they work without causing any problems. It's best to avoid documenting what the user can easily discover on his own.

-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+lporrello=illumina -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com [mailto:techwr-l-bounces+lporrello=illumina -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On Behalf Of Combs, Richard
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 9:54 AM
To: Monique Semp; TechWR-L
Subject: RE: wording q - is "both" superfluous?

Monique Semp wrote:

> So in the doc I want to say that âYou can <access the function screen>
> from two starting points in the menu:â, then give the bullet list of
> the two menu paths, and then I want to explain that they bring you to
> the same screen.
>
> So for that final sentence, which of the following is best, and, more
> importantly, why?
>
> * Both menu selections bring you to the <function> screen.
> * Either menu selection brings you to the <function> screen.

You start by telling them to access the <function> screen in one of two ways and end by telling them those are the two ways to access the <function> screen. Too many words. Too much repetition and detail. That's how you end up with a thousand-page manual that nobody ever reads.

> Or, maybe I avoid it altogether and just say, âWhen you choose the
> <function> from the Dashboard menu, the <function> screen appears.â

Much better.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.

http://bit.ly/doc-to-help

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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-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? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives


Follow-Ups:

References:
wording q - is "both" superfluous?: From: Monique Semp
RE: wording q - is "both" superfluous?: From: Combs, Richard

Previous by Author: RE: The e-mail charter
Next by Author: RE: Technical Writers and Overtime
Previous by Thread: RE: wording q - is "both" superfluous?
Next by Thread: RE: wording q - is "both" superfluous?


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads