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.
I wanted to thank those of you who sent me your opinions and rationales for
document numbering. My lead engineer is acquiescing to the combined wisdom of
To sum up:
**Flush left** seems to be the preferred method when setting up a
specification-type docs. The primary rationale is space. With each successive
indent there are shorter and shorter columns. A secondary rationale is that
engineers like it. So we make them happy.
There seems to be a general resistance to more than two or three levels of
numbering almost everything. The consensus is to use type size and spacing to
indicate level in the document.
My solution was to set up my document with four levels of heading, flush left,
reducing each level in size. What I found useful was to set the text in about
a n inch and a half so the numbers are readily apparent. That way my reader
has both the numbering and a text size to cue him/her. Also I made my body
text less dense by reducing my point size from 10 to 9.5 and increasing the
leading between lines by 7 pt. I am using bullets judiciously. (The engineer
likes to *bulletize* everything.)
It looks good, now I can focus on content. Again, thanks for your help. You
guys are great!