RE: Footnotes - acceptable in technical documentation?

Subject: RE: Footnotes - acceptable in technical documentation?
From: "McLauchlan, Kevin" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com>
To: Scott Bulloch <scott -dot- bulloch -at- gmail -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:39:26 -0500

You don't find that a comments column is a big drain on available space, in a table?
Or, similarly, that it can result in lots of vacant cells that constitute non-helpful white-space?
I like the artful use of whitespace on a page of text or text-and-graphics, to enhance the readability, but if more than half the cells in a column are empty, I wonder why the author didn't just use asterisks and a couple of footnotes.



-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bulloch
Sent: November-08-13 12:41 PM
Cc: TECHWR-L Writing
Subject: Re: Footnotes - acceptable in technical documentation?

At my company, we don't use footnotes in regular instructional text. Our practice for stuff like that is to indent a note icon (like a light bulb for tips or a yield sign for cautions) and a paragraph or so of text.

As far as tables go, I have seen table footnotes, but lately, the practice has been more toward putting such information in a Comments cell in the row.


On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Robert Lauriston <robert -at- lauriston -dot- com>wrote:

> Looking at the MS Manual of Style 4, there are a few references to
> table footnotes, no mention of regular footnotes.
>
> There's also one reference that seems to presume the writer is using
> Word to edit WinHelp source: "Also, cross-references (See and See
> also) are limited to normal keywords that jump directly to the topic
> that contains the K (keyword) footnote with that keyword."

The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer without copying
or disclosing it.




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

Learn more: http://bit.ly/ZeOZeQ

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

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


References:
Footnotes - acceptable in technical documentation?: From: Bruce Megan (ST-CO/MKP3)
Re: Footnotes - acceptable in technical documentation?: From: Robert Lauriston
RE: Footnotes - acceptable in technical documentation?: From: Brian.Henderson
Re: Footnotes - acceptable in technical documentation?: From: Robert Lauriston
Re: Footnotes - acceptable in technical documentation?: From: Scott Bulloch

Previous by Author: RE: So now we are content engineers?
Next by Author: RE: So now we are content engineers?
Previous by Thread: Re: Footnotes - acceptable in technical documentation?
Next by Thread: RE: Footnotes - acceptable in technical documentation?


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads