Re: spec writing - is simple ever wrong ?

Subject: Re: spec writing - is simple ever wrong ?
From: Tony Chung <tonyc -at- tonychung -dot- ca>
To: Monique Semp <monique -dot- semp -at- earthlink -dot- net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:18:01 -0700

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013, Monique Semp wrote:

> I’m editing a specification, and I was merrily redlining all sorts of
> convoluted wording to be simple and straight-forward.

It could have something to do with groups wanting to defer liability onto
another party. So when something bad happens each can blame the other for
not properly interpreting, or writing, the spec.

And most specs are temporary documents that are used to convince management
to build whatever is specified. Then all the work goes into the detailed
design documents and nobody refers to the spec again.


Email: tonyc -at- tonychung -dot- ca
Phone: +1-604-710-5164

New! Doc-to-Help 2013 features the industry's first HTML5 editor for authoring.

Learn more:


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 for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @


spec writing - is simple ever wrong ?: From: Monique Semp

Previous by Author: Re: verb noun install fail
Next by Author: Re: [External] Re: SharePoint question
Previous by Thread: Re: spec writing - is simple ever wrong ?
Next by Thread: Re: spec writing - is simple ever wrong ?

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads