Re: Quality

Subject: Re: Quality
From: Tom Warren <TWARREN -at- OSUVM1 -dot- BITNET>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 00:05:20 CST

Interesting issue. I have much the same problem with all the writing
advice that tells us to be clear. Try the local desk dictionary on that
one. I found 52 definitions of clear in one immediuately to hand. I
like your definition of a defect as an invitation to misunderstanding.
I have come to much the same conclusion about clear. So, here's a
start: agentless passive voice, ambiguous pronouns, incomplete
references (including those to visuals)--in short, anything that gives
the reader an opportunity to misunderstand. You mention fraud, and I
concur on that. I'm involved with farm managers and rural appraisers,
and they have a constant worry about misunderstanding. Their writing is
reviewed by bankers and lawyers evenm though their primary reader is
usually someone who owns or wants to buy a farm. So, I hit the areas
mentioned above plus all the usual stuff about modifiers. I hope this
gets the discussion going because I also have an interest in what
quality means. Europe (and American companies trading there) have ISO
9000 to contend with, and the first barrier is that elusive definition.
Tom Warren
twarren -at- vm1 -dot- ucc -dot- okstate -dot- edu
twarren -at- osuvm1 -dot- bitnet

Previous by Author: Desperately seeking sites
Next by Author: RE: Quality
Previous by Thread: RE: Quality
Next by Thread: RE: Quality

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

Sponsored Ads