Re: Technical name for the #?

[Wes Tracy <wtracy -at- IU -dot- NET>]

I usually just troll along and don't participate on these type of discussions,
but I have to weigh in on this one.  I have to respectfully disagree with using
"octothorpe".  One of the most basic tenets of tech writing is to write so the
user can understand and I just don't think they will know what an octothorpe is
(maybe I've led a sheltered life, but I first learned it through this thread).
To maintain an allegience to the historical use, I could see putting the true
name in apprentices after "number sign" or "pound sign", but both of those are
widely used and understood, and I would have to use one of them for the sake of
the user.

Respectfully,
Wes Tracy
<wtracy -at- spacey -dot- net>
Technical Writing Consultant

Judyth Mermelstein wrote:

> TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU,Internet writes:
> David Lettvin said:
> >I like gridlet. I like it better than all the rest put together.
> >Octothorpe is cute but takes too long to say.
>
> Do you plan to rename chocolate, too?
>
> As an old-fogey editor, I say "If something has a name, use it." It will
> always be an octothorpe to me. I do call it a "number sign" when dealing with
> children and the elderly, but "pound sign" sets my teeth on edge. "Gridlet"
> is cute but, like the other suggestions, surely unnecesary. The
> trisyllabically challenged can just think "octopus" and they'll do fine.
>
> Regards,
>
> Judyth Mermelstein
> freelance writer, editor, translator, and curmudgeon
> <judyth_mermelstein -at- babylon -dot- montreal -dot- qc -dot- ca>
>
> From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000==

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=