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: Help me with text emphasis From:Beverly Parks <bparks -at- HUACHUCA-EMH1 -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL> Date:Tue, 18 Apr 1995 14:38:21 MST
Here are some suggestions:
> "For example, to search the Words in Text field for either
> the term *oil* or the term *petroleum*, enter *oil,
<bold> <bold> <in quotation
> petroleum*. The resulting set will contain records having
> either the term *oil* or the term *petroleum*. The operator
> OR searches for records that meet *any* of the search
> "If you wish to OR *between* fields, you must use the Guided
Summary: Use bold to highlight or talk about a specific word or
term. For words or terms that the user is to type or enter, put
it in quotation marks. For words *you* as the author are
emphasizing, use italics.
> Another question: when we use italics and bolding, we want to
> use a font for each that is a bit different from the text font
> (otherwise, we find our bolding and italic getting lost). I say
> that if we do that, ALL instances of italic and bold must adhere
> to that same font--that is, if you bold a word such as
> *petroleum* above and you bold chapter references, both must be
> in the same font. (Some here have argued that *petroleum* should
> be in a different bold font for special emphasis, while a bolded
> chapter reference should simply be the regular text font
Without going into a lot of detail about typography, bold and
italic *are* considered different fonts. What I think you are
talking about changing is the "face" or typeface (Times Roman,
If bold and italic of one typeface are not providing enough
distinctness, then I would recommend trying a different typeface
for all the body text, not just for the emphasized words. You
*can* do it the way you suggest, but it is very tricky and will
take a well-trained eye to choose a complementary typeface.
You risk the professional image of your documents by being
tempted to mix typefaces. A different typeface for headings and
subheadings is common practice (e.g., a serif face for body text
and a sans serif face for headings and subs), but I don't
recommend mixing typefaces within the body text.
> And one MORE question: how do you handle internal references to
> chapters and subheadings? Do you put chapter heads in italic,
> heading in bold, or some such? Or would you use the same
> emphasis technique for both the chapter titles and the
I wouldn't use any emphasis for internal references to chapters
and subheadings. They should be in the same font as your
unemphasized body text.
Good luck. I'm sure you'll receive several suggestions!
=*= Beverly Parks =*= bparks -at- huachuca-emh1 -dot- army -dot- mil =*=
=*= "Unless otherwise stated, all comments are my own. =*=
=*= I am not representing my employer in any way." =*=