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:Section numbering From:Ian White <ian -at- IFWTECH -dot- DEMON -dot- CO -dot- UK> Date:Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:59:14 +0100
Sue Gallagher wrote:
> One solution I've found that cuts down on the noise but provides
> the convenience of numbered sections is, if level 1 is the chapter
> number, to number level 2 (1.0, 1.1 ...) and level 3 (1.1.1, 1.1.2
> but to omit the numbers from level 4 heads.
For documents in which section numbering is appropriate, I'd mostly
agree with Sue's approach, and especially with ending the numbering at
As a general rule, if the information to be documented seems to need
heirarchical sections more than three levels deep, I'd look for a better
way of organizing and presenting it - because there usually is one.
> BTW, when I start numbering at 1.0, ....
What's the logic of starting numbering with zero? It can only confuse
some readers, whereas starting with 1 will never confuse anybody.
(Worse still, some writers insist on adding a ".0" to chapter numbers,
so that chapters look like sections and so on down. Someone told me this
is a US military requirement - is this true, or is there a rational
> ... the zero heading is always the introduction.
As I see it, an introduction that applies to a whole chapter is level 1
text. Giving it a section number would seem to confuse heirarchical
numbering with serial numbering. Within each section there could be
another more specific introduction if needed (level 2 text, immediately
below the heading) or the section could plunge straight into sub-section
1 without introduction.
In general, it's much harder to write documentation whose structure is
completely self-explanatory without some help from a multi-level
numbering scheme. If the page layout already includes a wide left
margin, progressive indenting alone is definitely not the answer.
When editing reports written by engineers and scientists I find that
formal section numbering imposes a discipline on the writer to organize
the material in a logical way, and it thus makes my job easier.
Maybe the answer is that any technical writing should be sufficiently
well-organized that it *could* accept a rigorous, formal numbering
system; but that readers don't always need it.
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-