RE: Two trach documentation

Subject: RE: Two trach documentation
From: Jim Cort <jcort -at- totaltel -dot- com>
To: "'techwrites'" <TECHWR-L -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:25:22 -0500

I'd like to suggest that the disagreement here might be avoided by
substituting the word "comprehensive" for the word "accurate".

This is saying what others have said in a slightly different way. The
information in the manual must always be accurate. Otherwise, what's the
point? How comprehensive the information is depends on who's reading it and
what they're reading it for.

Users don't care how the system works. Users want to know how to do their
jobs with the system. The information you give them should be relevant to
that desire. There may be lots more you could tell them, but they don't
need to know it to do their jobs. So long as what you do include is on the
money, then leaving out the extra stuff is not inaccurate. Being selective
is not being inaccurate.

Jim Cort
Technical Writer
Jcort -at- totaltel -dot- com <mailto:Jcort -at- totaltel -dot- com>

Previous by Author: RE: Documenting enabled/disabled items
Next by Author: RE: Is there an "official" term for this process?
Previous by Thread: RE: Wrestling with Cyrillic...
Next by Thread: More or less - Was Tracking Off

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

Sponsored Ads