Re: Sanity check

Subject: Re: Sanity check
From: Gilda Spitz <Gilda_Spitz -at- SOFTARC -dot- COM>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 15:23:41 -0400

David Hailey,FAHAILEY -at- WPO -dot- HASS -dot- USU -dot- EDU,Internet writes:
Effective writing . . . will also apply
rhetorical tools toward establishing a lasting, friendly,
and professional relationship with the user.

My feeling about good writing, in help files, and everywhere else in your
product documentation, is that good writing reassures the user that this
product is worthwhile. I think the user makes the subconscious connection
that, if the documents are error-free, then the product must be well-designed
and useful; and even more importantly, that if the documents are full of
errors (even if the errors are grammar or punctuation, rather than factual),
this product must not be worth a damn.

This is the argument I make with those who call me anal-retentive when I fuss
over picky details!

Gilda Spitz
SoftArc Inc.

TECHWR-L List Information
To send a message about technical communication to 2500+ list readers,
E-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send administrative commands
ALL other questions or problems concerning the list
should go to the listowner, Eric Ray, at ejray -at- ionet -dot- net -dot-



Previous by Author: Re: Advice Request re: Mac Tool for 150-page Manual/Online Help
Next by Author: Re: Online documentation and customer acceptance
Previous by Thread: Re: Sanity check
Next by Thread: Re: Sanity check


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads