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.
Conditional statements in instructions - A translation twist
Subject:Conditional statements in instructions - A translation twist From:Lori Smith <lasmith -at- IQUEST -dot- NET> Date:Thu, 28 May 1998 00:15:27 -0500
We use two constructs when presenting conditional information.
If there are multiple steps the user could perform, we say, "1. Do one of the
following:" then list the options in a bullet list with a result for each one.
If there are multiple results after an instruction, we list them in a bulleted
list starting with a conditional phrase.
Granted, this has the potential to get complex, but we usually find a way to
work around any rough spots.
I do have a question about all of this. We are starting to write for conversion
to 8 different languages. Are there any special implications for conditional
statements in writing for translation?
Barb Philbrick wrote:
> > 1 - In the case you cite, my fear is that when people see those
> >cautionary statements, they skip over the whole step. With a caution on
> >*everything* including candleholders, who bothers to read them?
> I think if cautionary statements are used judiciously, they would draw
> attention. You're right -- you can't warn about everything. You've got
> to know your audience. As one of my friends once said (specific to her
> product line), "My audience is mechanics. They know that leaving the
> engine on while working on a car is dangerous, so I don't need to tell
> them that. What they need to know about are dangers they might not
> think of, or that are introduced by my company's product."
> My problem with notes or cautions in a procedure is that if they're
> before the step, people might not read them, and if they're after the
> step, it's probably too late.
> > I'm not (or at least I hope I'm not) being merely pigheaded =
> >consistent structure in procedure steps. I'm going on the assumption =
> >in a manual, you want the reader to get the rhythm/feel of the info you
> >present, which is easier if you make the info subliminally self-evident.
> It's hard to say if you're being pigheaded or logical -- I generally
> agree with your argument for persenting information consistently.
> Unfortunately, I think this is an area that we (technical writers)
> don't have good data on. We could talk all day about which we *prefer*
> -- but which way really keeps our users out of trouble? Are there any
> other people running usability tests that have found one type of
> procedure to be better than another?
> Barbara Philbrick, Caslon Services Inc.
> Technical Writing. caslonsvcs -at- ibm -dot- net
> Cleveland, OH