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.
> Geoff Hart writes:
[Geoff's nifty take on minimalism snipped]
[most of Robert's tart rebuttal also snipped]
> Having no sign at all leaves all the questions open. Are these fish
> for sale to the public? Are they fresh? Can I rely on this place
> as a source of fish, or is the supply of fish intermittant? And
> also: Do these guys really want my business, or do I have to stand
> around and catch the eye of some hostile clerk before finding out whether
> their stinking fish are for sale to the public at all?
Geoff's minimalistic approach leaves us with either the word
"fish" or no words at all. Robert's reply gives excellent reasons for
the need of *all* the words in the sign. What neither leaves us with is
the knowledge of whether these fish are alive or dead and whether they
are intended as food or pets, with the exception of the single word
"fresh." That single word tells us the intended purpose of the fish, as
we are not accustomed to wondering whether our pets are fresh or stale.
What changes would you recommend making (or not making) to that
sign in view of the need to convey this additional information?