Re: Repeated Cautions: necessary or redundant?

[Rev Simon Rumble <simon -at- rumble -dot- net>]

On Mon 21 Jan, Therese Harris made the following spurious claims:

>  So my questions are:
> -Are we beating a (safe but) dead horse?

Sounds like it.

> -Are we compromising safety if we merely say "Lower carriages by pushing the
> button..."?

Perhaps you could have a symbol in place of all the text with a
callout on each component explaining the symbol?  Make sure the
callout is included with each seperate complete task if this is a
modular type of document which will be read as-needed.

> -Does that extend our liability?

Probably if you speak to the lawyers but that's why you're a writer
and lawyers are tedious people.  Use your sensible judgement.  (IANAL)

> -Does repetition necessarily put the reader to sleep?

Most of us have enough trouble getting people to even read the
manual.  If you make it overly repetitive they won't bother which
arguably makes it less safe.

-- 
Rev Simon Rumble <simon -at- rumble -dot- net>
www.rumble.net

Maddy: "I'm fed up with your pedanticism."
Jonathan Creek: "The word is pedantry."

- Jonathan Creek by David Renwick


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Collect Royalties, Not Rejection Letters! Tell us your rejection story when you 
submit your manuscript to iUniverse Nov. 6 -Dec. 15 and get five free copies of 
your book. What are you waiting for? http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr

Have you looked at the new content on TECHWR-L lately?
See http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ and check it out.

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.