RE: On the value of glossaries containing terms the audience should already know

Subject: RE: On the value of glossaries containing terms the audience should already know
From: "Robart, Kay" <Kay -dot- Robart -at- tea -dot- state -dot- tx -dot- us>
To: Robert Lauriston <robert -at- lauriston -dot- com>, "Elissa K. Miller" <emiller -at- doubleknot -dot- com>, techwrl <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 16:55:58 +0000

I didn't see this topic to begin with, but a glossary should only contain the words that are referred to in the text.

-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+kay -dot- robart=tea -dot- state -dot- tx -dot- us -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com [mailto:techwr-l-bounces+kay -dot- robart=tea -dot- state -dot- tx -dot- us -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On Behalf Of Robert Lauriston
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 10:45 AM
To: Elissa K. Miller; techwrl
Subject: Re: On the value of glossaries containing terms the audience should already know

I think it would be weird to define RFC, SSH, LDAP, DNS, or IP in a document aimed at network administrators or the like. That would be like defining "tire" in a car manual.

If somebody wonders what USB stands for they can Google 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 kay -dot- robart -at- tea -dot- state -dot- tx -dot- us -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


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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:
On the value of glossaries containing terms the audience should already know: From: Elissa K. Miller
Re: On the value of glossaries containing terms the audience should already know: From: Robert Lauriston

Previous by Author: RE: Version number question
Next by Author: Re: "either case" vs. "both cases" ?
Previous by Thread: Re: On the value of glossaries containing terms the audience should already know
Next by Thread: RE: On the value of glossaries containing terms the audience should already know


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads