RE: Microsoft Manual of Style

["Michael West" <mwest -at- oz -dot- quest -dot- com>]

Darren Barefoot wrote:  "The MS Manual of Style is not the be-all, end-all of
decision-makers, but we make Windows software, so we adhere to it."

John Wilcox wrote: "I don't see the logic in that."

The logic is that using the language and symbol systems your users are
already familiar with is usually helpful. Also, the Microsoft MoS is, as
style guides go, well-produced and generally supported by usability testing,
feedback, and marketability factors. They've got the bucks to do it. This is
not to say that it doesn't have its quirks.

Sometimes, of course, there are overriding reasons for doing things
differently. In my shop, we don't exactly "adhere" to it, but we do use it as
a first point of reference and a baseline upon which we build additions,
variations and exceptions. Doing so saves a lot of time and money.

Getting back to the start of the thread, I think the Microsoft editors are
wise to remind their writers that many readers are unclear about the
difference between a CD-ROM and an audio CD. As objects, they are practically
indistinguishable, yet they are functionally distinct and must be handled in
completely different ways. How much harm does it do, then, to make it clear
to EVERYONE which kind of CD you are referring to?

I recently visited a bookseller's Web site where they advertise "talking
books on cassette tape or CD-ROM." They've got it wrong, of course. They mean
"compact disc" or "audio CD." My point is that these distinctions are not
obvious to everybody -- not even people who deal with them every day.

Michael West
Melbourne, Australia