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:redundancy From:Peter W Praetorius <ppraeto -at- HUBCAP -dot- CLEMSON -dot- EDU> Date:Wed, 7 Dec 1994 19:19:37 -0500
I am presently working for a manufacturer of lawn mowers. Today the boss,
while editing a manual in print, asked my opinion of a sentence that he
feels is redundant, yet he's wondering if leaving it in might be better
from a legal standpoint. One of the main reasons for the manuals is to
protect the company from law suits. For instance, one person sued the
company for not warning him that he should not use the machine for a hedge
trimmer -- he lost some fingers. Now all manuals have a statement that
says that the mower is to be used solely for cutting grass.
So what do you all think of this sentence? Should the material after the
"slash" (/) mark be deleted? And is there ever a place for redundancy
in technical writing?
"Always operate at speeds that allow you to have complete control of the
tractor / and can maneuver safely or stop in case of an emergency."
Probably not the best sentence to begin with, but his feeling was that
"complete control" would imply "maneuver safely. . . ."
Pete Praetorius ,--O
ppraeto -at- hubcap -dot- clemson -dot- edu _ \<,_
ppraeto -at- clemson -dot- clemson -dot- edu (_)/ (_)