RE: Omitting Table and Figure Numbers?

["Joan Goldstein" <jgoldstein -at- exagrid -dot- com>]

No figure or table numbers, eh? Sure, I do that most of the time.
Surprisingly enough, I've managed to stay employed, and based on the
reaction from those who have used my documentaion (internal and
external), I suspect that the readers didn't even notice that they
weren't there -- cuz they never mentioned the fact.

(Excuse me while I take a moment to don my flack jacket now).

My general view is that the use of table or figure numbers is not an
absolute rule.  It depends on the situation. It depends on the book
structure. It depends on the content. It depends on the audience. I tend
to use what I refer to as "modular" or a "structured" format for writing
most technical materials (alright, I'll type the evil
words..."Information Mapping").  If each chunk of material, whether a
set of paragraphs, a figure, or a table, is clearly labeled and helps
the reader to know what follows, then I don't find that the numbering
adds a lot of extra value. Doesn't hurt much either, just not, in my
opinion, necessary. 

I think of it this way. When I do a search on a PDF book, or even scan a
printed book, I tend to look for phrases, headings, labels, etc because
I'm looking for a specific type of information. If I'm looking for the
parameters for the WHATEVER command, I probably would search for
"WHATEVER parameters" rather than Table 34 (or was that Table 334? How
does one remember that?).  Even in a list of Tables, the numbers don't
have meaning until I find the phrase I need. And, with full text search
being my primary mode of finding things these days, the figure/table
number is probably not the first thing that comes to my mind.

But...that's just one person's opinion. Your situation and level of
comfort may vary :-)

(running and ducking now...)

Joan (numberless) Goldstein
Principal Technical Writer
ExaGrid Systems, Inc.
508-898-2872 x285

Beware of communication and travel
snafus ... Mercury is in retrograde.