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: What do you call that thing.... From:Mike Collier - SSG <MikeCol -at- SBSERVICES -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:22:24 -0500
>I would stick with tree. While in context it could be construed as jargon,
>it is in fact an excellent metaphor as the ideas of trees, branches, roots,
>etc. correspond to something easily understandable.
>Are your programmers looking for something more geeky? Or do they consider
>the term "tree" too geeky?
>It makes me wonder where things are headed if our natural world analogies no
>longer can be deemed appropriate for explaining abstract concepts to users.
>From: Jane Bergen[SMTP:janeb -at- answersoft -dot- com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 1997 9:47 AM
>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject: What do you call that thing....
>I'm trying to describe an interface for a user guide. We're using
>the Windows Explorer model of a collapsible/expandable tree in one of
>the views.... is it generally considered OK (in other words,
>non-jargon) to refer to it as a "tree" ---