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.
I'm writing a set of procedures to tell an installer how to set up some
equipment, which consists of two systems. 95% of the steps for the two
systems are identical, but there are some differences.
1) Give both sets of procedures in full.
2) Give the first set of procedures in full. Then say, "Do the second
setup like the first with these changes ..."
3) Give both sets of procedures in full, but flag somehow the items that
4) Combine them both into one set of procedures and every so often say,
"For System A, do this. For System B, do that."
(The installer will be setting up one system right after another. The
procedures for one system takes up about a page and a half.)
I've found, when I've been following instructions in situations like this,
that solution #1 irks me because it makes me wonder what's different and
what's the same. I end up reading carefully things I already know how to
do. But another writer thinks it is clearer to repeat it all.
<sharman -at- wowmedia -dot- com>