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: TECHWR-L Digest - 8 Jun 1994 to 9 Jun 1994 From:Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster <POSTMASTER -at- OSUVM1 -dot- BITNET> Date:Fri, 10 Jun 1994 10:09:52 -0400
> Karen Steele wrote:
> > How many steps do you/your department find acceptable in a procedure?
> >
> > I'm writing a long, complex set of instructions & keep breaking them into
> > smaller units.
> >
> > Somehow, though, they still seem awfully long & complicated.
> >
> > What rules do you follow?
>Tina Sansom wrote:
> One of my projects lately is documenting a long complicated installation of
> software, which includes weird network configuration stuff. The whole thing
> is about 30 pages, but I divided it up into smaller chunks which I called
> "tasks". I tried to keep the tasks around 1-2 pages. Some are a little
> longer, and some are shorter, it also depends on where the logical place is to
> break the procedure. But any longer than 2 pages, and the numbering is just
> too hard to follow (I think.) And too hard for me to keep track of.
I've encountered this issue in several recent projects. I agree that endless
steps are hard to follow and daunting for the reader -- but in my case there
was a long, uninterrupted sequence for some users and task-skipping for others.
I decided it was less confusing for readers to skip to "step 52" than to skip
to the section entitled "blahblahblah." The overall numbering gives a context
to the procedure that's difficult to emulate with words or headings, etc.
