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.
In --Guide to Technical Editing-- by Eisenberg, she (not to be gender-correct, but because the author really is a woman) states that "most academic publications order [footnotes] with symbols [asterisk], [dagger], [double dagger], [paragraph mark/squiggle thing], [section break/narrow double line], followed by superscript italic letters.
Chicago uses the same order, except it adds a number sign to the end of the list. Instead of superscript italic letters, it suggests that "when more symbols are needed, these may be doubled and tripled in the same sequence."
These pertain primarily to tables, which is what I'm usually footnoting. Here's my question...I've seen the progression go from asterisk, to DOUBLE asterisk, to dagger, and so on down the line. Since I very rarely go beyond four footnotes, I would prefer to stay with asterisks and daggers, which I think are more readily recognized as footnote symbols by the general public. Can anyone give me a reason why I shouldn't do this, as long as I stay consistent? Am I breaking a sacred commandment of tech writing or anything?
If I were to do this, would I use asterisk, double asterisk, dagger, double dagger (my preference) or asterisk, dagger, double asterisk, double dagger?
(for the record, I'm staying away from numbered footnotes, because I'm often footnoting data).
Jlkraus -at- ametekwater -dot- com