TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: "dummy" books to footnotes for definitions From:Chuck Martin <techwriter -at- VNET -dot- IBM -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 28 Mar 1994 10:58:33 PST
The idea of footnotes for definitions seems a tad (highly technical term)
old fashioned. I'd prefer too see definitions in the margin, alongside
the term's appearance, a tactic I've often seen in textbooks.
That fits perfectly in the modern trend to have one wide margin, typically
on the outside of the page. And a reader's eyes don't have to travel
nearly as far. It's an idea I think I might include in my current docs--
if the tool I'm using will allow such things.
One question comes to mind: would such marginal definitions replace
a glossary, which would then be redundant? Do we make users look in the
index, which would point to the definition in the book, or would that
be violating reader's expectations to leave out a separate glossary
section?
Chuck Martin
Information Developer (another highly technical term), IBM
TechWriter -at- vnet -dot- ibm -dot- com
