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.
Subject:Re: Acronyms & Abbreviations--Just Say NO! From:eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:53:10 -0400
Tom Murrell :
>>Then why is so much time spent explaining them?
As you challenged another poster. Do you have the study handy backing up your
allegations that learning the acronyms uses up more resources than those saved
by using them in the first place?
>>And why is the hardest part of a new job learning the alphabet
>>soup of the new organization?
I doubt it's the hardest part. It's just one of the many things you have to
learn if you're going to be sufficiently technical/functional in a given field.
>>And, if I had a nickel (that's a five cent piece American) for everytime I
>>asked an old hand what a particular initialism meant
>>only to be met with a blank stare, I could have retired
>>five years ago.
While an interesting anecdote, I hardly think it's relevant. How many people
know what LASER or RADAR stand for? How many people know what they are? I'm sure
many more know what they are than what they stand for.
If the following were to be found in a document, how many would know what they
are?
- radio detection and ranging
- light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation
How many had to think about it even though the acronyms were included in this
post first? I think that the spelled out versions may induce more confusion than
the acronyms. I challenge anyone to pick up a technical or general knowledge
article on either subject and read the spelled out version instead of the
acronym each and everytime it appears. I think you'd have to be a liar to say
that the resulting document is less confusing or more communicative than its
acronym laden original.
It's not what the initialism or acronym means that's important most of the time
but the concept/system behind the initialism/acronym. If that concept is
correctly communicated to/interpreted by the reader and is appropriate for the
audience, where's the problem? Slap a glossary in the doc and there's no reason
for complaint.
---
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.