Re: Need Release Notes Advice (fwd)

Subject: Re: Need Release Notes Advice (fwd)
From: Kathleen Walsh <kathleen -at- QANTEL -dot- COM>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:18:23 -0800

Barbara Hallnan wrote:

In general, we do not use "this has been fixed" unless there is
no clear way to write it in the present tense (most often, this
occurs with intermittent problems since I can't say "it no longer
intermittently does this" since that could mean it now does it
all the time). My text uses words like "now" and "no longer"
to indicate a fix.

If these problems fixes were in the release notes I write, they'd
look like this:

> * The API was not accounting for puts to
> Assumed.Scenario.Reinvest.xxx that were followed by puts
> to Assumed.TradeDate. This problem has been fixed.
> Puts to Assumed.Scenario.Reinvest.xxx
> are now properly maintained. To revert to default values,
> put a NULL value.


The API now accounts for puts to Assumed.Senario.Reinvest.xxx that are
followed by puts to Assumed.TradeDate. To revert to default values,
put a NULL value.

OR

Puts to Assumed.S.R.xx are not properly maintained. To revert to
default values, put a NULL value.

> * Rate of return calculations for pools were incorrect.
> Horizon cash flows were being calculated from SMMs and
> projected coupons that started at horizon instead of
> at Assumed.SettleDate.0. This problem has been fixed.
> SMMs and projected coupons now start at Assumed.SettleDate.0.

(this one I had a problem understanding, but here's my shot at it)

Rate of return calculations for pools are now correct. SMMs
and projected coupons now start at Assumed.SD.0.


> * On Portfolio Holdings, when you used the Edit Column
> Values box to change values quickly, values less than 1.0
> required a leading zero. For example, ".5" was ignored
> but "0.5" worked. This problem has been fixed.

this one I might have left as is, but could have changed to:

On Portfolio Holdings, when changing values quickly using the Edit
Column, values less than 1.0 no longer require a leading zero
to be entered (e.g., .5 is now accepted).


> Now that you have been snowed with financial speak,
> let me get to the question. One of our managers
> has requested that release note entries be stated as
> positively as possible (a noble goal). One writer has
> recast the problems fixed entries so that they read
> something like this:

> * Gov/Corp User Security no longer crashes when you
> enter a maturity date prior to the current date.

> or

> * In Portfolio Holdings, when you use the Edit
> Column Values button, unpriced securities are now
> excluded from the aggregate calculations.

> This method of phraseology is indeed more positive.
> What bothers me about it is that the reader has to
> reverse the logic to identify what the problem was.
> In the second example, reversing the logic could
> create confusion for the reader (i.e., I think it's
> not clear what the impact of the problem was).


This is exactly what we have been doing for years and have not
had any complaints from our dealers or customers. I don't
think, if you word it right, that it is that much of a
"reversal" for the reader. If they have had the problem
they will recoginize it, and if they haven't they really won't
care. The first one (about the crash) is extremely clear and less
wordy that adding "this problem has been fixed" I think the
rewordings are on the right track.

Kathleen
kathleen -at- qantel -dot- com


Previous by Author: Two-Year College Technical Communication Programs
Next by Author: Re: A Preponderance of Females (long)
Previous by Thread: American / British English Indexing Request
Next by Thread: Re: chemical hoods (and other dangerous practices)


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads