Re: MS Manual of Style- Tec

[Jane Bergen <janeb -at- ANSWERSOFT -dot- COM>]

Original messages below for those who care)

As technical writers we are supposed to care about things like
standards, consistency, etc. The Microsoft Manual of Style goes a
long way toward establishing standards in interface design and
terminology. If we don't like the MMS, then we ought to find
SOMETHING to use as a SUBSTITUTE....not whine about Bill Gates. For
the record, Microsoft's achievements in setting standards has made my
life much easier. I still remember the old DOS days, when every
single program was different in appearance and operation, and still
buggy, too.

My point is this: Separate the products from the business practices.
Everyone loves to sneer and jeer at the big guy, but he delivers.
That's more than I can say for some.

Jane Bergen
janeb -at- answersoft -dot- com
or
janeb -at- airmail -dot- net

====================original messages below================

Mike Huber  writes:

> Many of the things it covers are Microsoft artifacts. It's good for
> answers to "what's the official name for that thing in the corner of
> the dialog?" type questions. MS owns the interface - the official
> name is whatever MS say it is.

> It's best feature is the authority it carries in it's name. I've
> walked away from pointless standards debates saying "@#$! It - let's
> just do what the MMoS says!" over my shoulder. What the MMoS says is
> just about sure to be something I can live with (even if it's not
> exactly what I would like) and corporate types don't like to argue
> with Big Bill.


Tony Rocco writes

> A Microsoft manual of style? That's an oxymoron if ever there was
> one. What next, an Exxon guide to environmentalism? A Gingrich book
> on the practice of compassion? Pope Paul's guide to safe sex?
> Absurdity abounds in this day and age.