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.
I've put as many as eight figures on a single page, so I don't think
referring to the page without the figure number is a really bright idea.
It's also pretty common to have a series of figures with similar titles,
such as when an idea is being expanded upon, and dropping the reader into a
twisty maze of passages, all different, is not a very friendly act.
My preferences are as follows:
1. Call it a "figure," whether it's a table or a figure. I like this
because (a) the word "table" or "figure" doesn't register with me when I'm
reading a document; I just look for the number, and (b) I typically combine
tables and figures, with a diagram in the first row and a number of
additional rows that explain the pieces or the process. Since my documents
are sprinkled with things that are both figures and tables, the distinction
is not worth drawing.
2. Just use the number. As I said, I don't even notice whether it says
"figure" or "table" -- I'm certainly not going to remember the caption. "See
figure 6" is plenty.
3. Do competent layout so the first place the reader looks, there it is.
This is the most important rule of all. Page referencing is a crutch for
people who haven't learned good layout. (And, while we're on the topic of
bad layout, what's wrong with FrameMaker, that it can't float frames to the
bottom of the current page? Outrageous!)
