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: Correct terms vs. commonly used terms From:TPotter243 -at- AOL -dot- COM Date:Sat, 10 Feb 1996 20:50:57 -0500
In a message dated 96-02-09 18:13:52 EST, rjl -at- bostech -dot- com writes:
>>I argued for 15 minutes this morning
>>about the difference between using "correct" terminology,
>>using what our users expect, or using what they'll need to learn.
I run into this problem all the time. The problem is that the lawyers (govt.
regulatory body, etc.) require that references are to the equipment as
designated on the drawings or specifications. They have a point; without the
traceability, no one knows what you are referring to exactly. On the other
hand, the users have their own nomenclature, and this will be very difficult
to change. I had one vessel referred to as "Big Betsy" as opposed to the
correct nomenclature which was Wet Vent Knockout Drum. My solution was to put
the nicknames in parenthesis after the correct name. If you are not hindered
by regulatory bodies, you can follow the users desires. Otherwise, you must
use the correct nomenclature somehow.
TPotter243 -at- aol -dot- com