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: Procedural Steps II From:Win Day <winday -at- IDIRECT -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 1 Nov 1996 06:52:36 -0500
At 02:09 PM 10/31/96 -0500, Bruce Nevin <bnevin -at- CISCO -dot- COM> wrote about
numbering procedural steps and sub-steps:
>The particular beast I have in mind was a good illustration of the maxim
>that anything so difficult to document needs to be (re)designed.
>This may be a thought to pursue in your case too.
Lofty ideal, not always possible.
I don't document software (well, not much, anyway). What I write about is
refineries. Starting up a refinery process unit involves bringing hundreds
of pieces of equipment into service. Each piece of equipment needs a series
of numbered steps, and the pieces must be started up in a specified order.
So I frequently end up with nested procedures.
Redesigning the interface isn't always an option.
Email: winday -at- idirect -dot- com