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.
Christopher Knight <knight -at- ADA -dot- COM> wrote:
> 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?
If it makes you feel any better, I just got some comments
from a reviewer who wrote in large letters across the draft
that the pagination was all wrong and needed a major over-haul.
1.) The reviewer didn't understand that blank pages had to be inserted
so that chapters started on the right. He thought the extra pages were a
mistake, and should be deleted.
2.) The draft was double-sided, and some pages had been turned around
the wrong way. The reviewer thought that the pagination was confused.
Well, I needed a laugh on late Friday afternoon...
"In a perfect world, it occurs to me now, I would write this in
blood, not ink. One cannot lie, if one writes in blood. There
is too much responsibility: and the ghosts of those one has
killed will rise up and twist the pen down true lines, change
the written word to the unwritten as the red lines fade on
the page to brown."
--Neil Gaiman, "Mr Punch"