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.
RE: Effective Arguments for Unique Control Names...?
Subject:RE: Effective Arguments for Unique Control Names...? From:John Posada <JPosada -at- book -dot- com> To:"'pdenchfield -at- yahoo -dot- com'" <pdenchfield -at- yahoo -dot- com>, TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:06:21 -0400
yep...do it their way. Refer to each of the two controls by the same name
throughout the documentation, then give them the material to review.
Make sure you give them the content in a way that they cannot figure it from
context, the way a user would, because to the user, context may not mean as
much to them as to the developer.
Yes, you might have some cleaning up to do, but isn't that always part of
the game anyway?
John Posada
Information Hunter-Gatherer
Special Projects; Information Technology
Barnes&Noble.com
NY: 212-414-6656
>But from a user documentation perspective, identically-named
>controls can present a problem. There's the context of the
>actual procedure and there's the context of the table listing
>the control descriptions. Probably there are other contexts
>I haven't yet considered. Or am I being too finicky?
...
>I plan to visit the user interface design team and educate
>them on the problems of identically-named controls when writing
>user documentation.
>Suggestions, anyone?
