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: State of the art From:Kris Olberg <KJOlberg -at- AOL -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 1 Dec 1995 14:57:11 -0500
In a message dated 95-11-30 13:47:29 EST, you write:
>The term "state of the art" has been used for some time to refer to
> the highest level of development. In your opinion, is it hackneyed?
> I posed the question once to an STC PIC a while ago and one member
> suggested: "Bleeding edge." This may be too bloody for many. I
> considered " the fore-running cusp" for a softer sound, but neither
> terms seem adequate to me. They just don't have the ring of an
> engineering feat. I've also run across "state of the edge," but it's
> a mere substitution of one word for another. Any suggestions
IMHO: "state-of-the-art" does not necessarily cover ALL items described as
"bleeding edge" or "the fore-running cusp." Items falling into the latter two
categories carry a high probability to either succeed OR FAIL. I view
state-of-the-art items as having a high probability for success only.
Therefore, state-of-the-art items are a subset of "bleeding edge" items.
kjolberg -at- aol -dot- com
kjolberg -at- ix -dot- netcom -dot- com
102031 -dot- 3556 -at- compuserve -dot- com