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.
To me, the language you gave seems overly complex to begin with--and I
tend to avoid words like "functionality" in most cases, as being not
terribly helpful and somewhat grandiloquent.
Instead, how about something like:
"The increased capacity of XXX means production costs can be lower,
but both the initial cost and the complexity of the device are both
higher. This is why many vendors have not included it in their
implementations."
Or perhaps:
"If you are willing to pay a higher initial price and if increased
complexity is acceptable, the extra capacity of XXX can result in
lower production costs."
To me, writing simply and directly is usually the best route of all.
It also pays dividends when working with translation or when a reader
might not have English as the primary language.
David
> From: Janice Gelb <Janice -dot- Gelb -at- Sun -dot- COM>
> To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:48:35 +1100
> Subject: Re: Mixing metaphors?
> On Jan 29, 2010 8:32AM, Deborah Hemstreet wrote:
>>
>> Wow, a lot of food for thought...
>>
>> Well, here is the context:
>>
>> However, increased XXX capacity can be a two-edged sword. On one hand,
>> it significantly enables lower cost functionality. But on the other
>> hand, the increasing complexity and cost of XXX designs has prevented
>> many vendors from using, or taking full advantage of, the capabilities
>> of XXX.
>>
>> MUDDIER and muddier, one hand is good, the other is bad... and if I CUT
>> you with a two-edged sword you are more seriously wounded than with a
>> single-edged sword...
>>
>
> I must admit that I'm a little surprised that
> more people haven't heard of this metaphor,
> which I otherwise would have thought was fairly
> common. The usage is accurate here: the meaning
> of the metaphor as I've always heard it is that
> a two-edged sword has the potential of cutting
> both the target and the wielder of the sword.
>
> I'd have ordinarily said to leave it: the meaning
> of the metaphor is actually correct in context and,
> as someone else said, the one hand/other hand usage
> is so common that readers aren't likely to perceive
> it as continuing the sword metaphor. However, as
> a few people don't seem to be familiar with the
> metaphor, if it really bothers you, you might
> consider changing this to:
>
> "However, increased XXX capacity has both
> benefits and drawbacks. On one hand..."
>
> If you want to substitute one metaphor for
> another, you could use instead "a mixed
> blessing" :->
>
> -- Janice
>
> ***********************************************************
> Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with
> janice -dot- gelb -at- sun -dot- com | this message is the return address
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Bill Swallow <techcommdood -at- gmail -dot- com>
> To: dvora -at- tech-challenged -dot- com
> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:48:56 -0500
> Subject: Re: Mixing metaphors?
> Have you tried the Ren & Stimpy approach? ;) "Maaaayyyyybe something
> bad... Maaaaayyyybe something good..."
>
> Honestly, for informal and untechnical, it works as-is. If it doesn't
> sit well, remove "two edged sword" and say "increased XXX capacity has
> benefits and drawbacks."
>
> FWIW, I welcome informal and "untechnical". If you're explaining
> complex concepts to people who aren't hard-core techies, you need to
> seriously dumb it down. That in itself is a fun challenge, but I find
> it energizing to write documentation in plain, informal language. :)
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Deborah Hemstreet
> <dvora -at- tech-challenged -dot- com> wrote:
>> Wow, a lot of food for thought...
>>
>> Well, here is the context:
>>
>> However, increased XXX capacity can be a two-edged sword. On one hand, it
>> significantly enables lower cost functionality. But on the other hand, the
>> increasing complexity and cost of XXX designs has prevented many vendors
>> from using, or taking full advantage of, the capabilities of XXX.
>>
>> MUDDIER and muddier, one hand is good, the other is bad... and if I CUT you
>> with a two-edged sword you are more seriously wounded than with a
>> single-edged sword...
>>
>> The client wants this a INFORMAL and UNTECHNICAL as possible (ARGH)!
>
> --
> Bill Swallow
>
> Twitter: @techcommdood
> Blog: http://techcommdood.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/techcommdood
>
> Available for contract and full time opportunities.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> STC Ideas: http://stcideas.ning.com
> Join: http://stcideas.ning.com/?xgi=6X1vNGI
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: voxwoman <voxwoman -at- gmail -dot- com>
> To: "Butler, Darren J CTR USAF AFMC 584 CBSS/GBHDB" <Darren -dot- Butler -dot- ctr -at- robins -dot- af -dot- mil>
> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:17:24 -0500
> Subject: Re: Mixing metaphors?
> It reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from my favorite cartoon:
> Futurama:
> "If we can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a
> house of cards. Checkmate"
>
> -Wendy
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Gene Kim-Eng" <techwr -at- genek -dot- com>
> To: <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:04:07 -0800
> Subject: Re: Mixing metaphors?
> Is this document going to be translated into any other languages...like English,
> for example?
>
> Gene Kim-Eng
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Hemstreet" <dvora -at- tech-challenged -dot- com>
>>
>> Well, here is the context:
>>
>> However, increased XXX capacity can be a two-edged sword. On one hand,
>> it significantly enables lower cost functionality. But on the other
>> hand, the increasing complexity and cost of XXX designs has prevented
>> many vendors from using, or taking full advantage of, the capabilities
>> of XXX.
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "jobs @ ProSpring" <jobs -at- prospring -dot- net>
> To: <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:52:33 -0800
> Subject: Personal information about you is hidden in the "meta data" of MS Word files
> Personal information about you is stored in MS Word files, hidden in the
> "meta data" of the documents. Information that anyone who receives your
> resume can see.
>
> Read this before emailing someone your resume or other Word doc:
>http://www.prospringstaffing.com/resources.php
>
>
>
>
> Jack Molisani
> ProSpring Technical Staffing
> www.prospringstaffing.com
> 866-302-5774 x201
>
> Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/JackMolisani
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to
> TECHWR-L.
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/listinfo/techwr-l
> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
>http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info.
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you looking for one documentation tool that does it all? Author,
build, test, and publish your Help files with just one easy-to-use tool.
Try the latest Doc-To-Help 2009 v3 risk-free for 30-days at: http://www.doctohelp.com/
Explore CAREER options and paths related to Technical Writing,
learn to create SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS documents, and
get tips on FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION best practices. Free at: http://www.ModernAnalyst.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
