RE: Microsoft Manual of Style

["krupp, marguerite" <krupp_marguerite -at- emc -dot- com>]

Interesting point, Michael!

Technically, a "talking book," that is, one intended to be listened to, is
an audio CD. I would refer to that kind of book as a CD.

But I have also seen and worked with actual books that were, in fact,
CD-ROMs. That is, they were intended to be viewed/listened to/interacted
with via a computer. They are much more than "talking books." They contain
coding that enables them to be played in a very different kind of player,
and the creators' intent is that the users' involvement be much more than
simply slipping the disc into a player. So while I wouldn't say that the
determinant is the drive itself, that is indeed a factor. But it's the
coding and interactivity that really make it different. (It probably would
sound horrible, if it were legible at all, to an audio CD player.) I would
call this type of product a CD-ROM to distinguish it from the "pure" audio
CD, despite the fact that they share a common medium.

Hmmm. I'd better go get some coffee and get back to work. Good thread,
though!

Laater,
Marguerite 

Michael West wrote:
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