Re: Single-step procedures

Subject: Re: Single-step procedures
From: Paul Baechler <bachp -at- HIWAAY -dot- NET>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:57:38 -0600

>> Further to the posting earlier about numbers-for-steps and
>> bullets-for-lists, my practice is to use a bullet for a procedure
>> with only one step. A reviewer has just asked me to change this
>> to a number 1 "for consistency". I figure a number 1 implies
>> more than one step. What do you-all think?

A lot depends on exactly what it is you are writing. I used to write the
procedures in aircraft operator's manuals (and was also the subject
matter expert). "Consistency" was part of standardization, and all
procedure steps, including single steps, were numbered. There are a
number of valid reasons for this, two of which are user expectation and
the requirements of the checklist, which is derived from the expanded
checklist in the operator's manual and includes only numbered items. In
this case neither a dingbat, nor an indent, nor inclusion in text would
be acceptable.

Paul Baechler Most people will rather die than think.-
bachp -at- hiwaay -dot- net Langewiesche

TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
Search the archives at or search and
browse the archives at

Previous by Author: Re: Y'all
Next by Author: Re: Air force 1 in Australia
Previous by Thread: Re: Single-step procedures
Next by Thread: Re: Single-step procedures

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads