Fw: Numbering Steps for Multiple Paths

Subject: Fw: Numbering Steps for Multiple Paths
From: "Tim Altom" <taltom -at- simplywritten -dot- com>
To: "TechDoc List" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 07:31:03 -0500

I'm with you. We never use "1" for a single step. A "1" always implies a
"2". Nobody starts counting with "one" and stays there. "One" is intuitively
obvious. If nothing else, using some other mechanism for a single step cues
the reader that this is a special, one-step case. I'd even be in favor of a
heading "This process has only one step." Readers can't have too many cues.

Tim Altom
Simply Written, Inc.
Featuring FrameMaker and the Clustar Method(TM)
"Better communication is a service to mankind."
317.562.9298
http://www.simplywritten.com




>> I still don't buy it. The number "1." for a step is a multipurpose
>> identifier that clarifies there is only one step <snip>
>
>To me it does just the opposite... having a step 1 implies there will be a
step
>2. I'd end up looking for step 2, wondering if my manual was defective,
calling
>the company and complaining, and boring people for years to come with the
story
>of the manual that only had step 1... but that's just me.
>






Previous by Author: Re: Process, not bureaucracy
Next by Author: Re: Who dreams up these things?
Previous by Thread: RE: Numbering Steps for Multiple Paths
Next by Thread: RE: Numbering Steps for Multiple Paths


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads