TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Whilst weighing up whether to include or exclude the section, even if the
engineer is correct and no one reads it (and I know this will be a slightly
controversial argument) perhaps it should still stay in. Because when
someone picks up a document they expect to see certain sections, otherwise
they might feel cheated or that the document doesn't cover the topic
adequately.
It is similar to the right size for a document....sometimes they judge it by
content, sometimes by accuracy, and ALWAYS by weight. If it doesn't look
right on the shelf they won't even open the covers of your carefully thought
out document/manual/book.
Ahhh so my vote would be to leave it in, unless it directly contradicts some
other feature of your document.
regards and thanks,
Sean
~Human nature? Sounds like bear cubs playing with loaded guns.~
-----Original Message-----
From: Jane Carnall [mailto:jane -dot- carnall -at- digitalbridges -dot- com]
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2002 1:24 AM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: Recommended reading
At the end of the overview/intro chapter in all the docs I do for this
company, I have a list of "recommended reading" - commercially-published
books, some official websites, etc. This related directly to the info in the
manual (ie, if we tell them they have to use PL/SQL, we supply the
title/ISBN of a guide to learning PL/SQL - how I get these titles is by
reminding the developers to let me know what references THEY used and which
ones they thought were good, etc).
Anyway, one developer says he never reads this section and can't believe
anyone does. <g> (I have no feedback from our external audience on this
topic. I know they read the manual because the testers tell me about it, but
no specific info on what sections get read.)
I'm trying to think up something short, snappy but not snippy, etc, to
suggest that maybe, just maybe, other people might read sections he
doesn't... and then I thought I should stop to consider the possibility that
maybe, just maybe, he's right.
Thoughts.
Jane Carnall
"They are prisoners of their own dreams and illusions, as we were 30 years
ago. If the issue is between our and their illusions, we will never resolve
the conflict."
Unless stated otherwise, these opinions are mine, and mine alone. Apologies
for the long additional sig: it is added automatically and outwith my
control.
Home: hj -dot- carnall -at- virgin -dot- net
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Buy RoboHelp Deluxe starting at only $798: you'll get RoboDemo, the hot new
software demonstration tool that's taking the Help authoring world by storm,
together with RoboHelp Office. Learn more at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.
---
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.
