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: Question for writers in New Zealand and Australia
Subject:Re: Question for writers in New Zealand and Australia From:reshma pendse <reshma_pendse -at- yahoo -dot- co -dot- in> To:"Brian -dot- Henderson -at- mitchell1 -dot- com" <Brian -dot- Henderson -at- mitchell1 -dot- com>, "Techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com" <Techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:51:56 +0530 (IST)
Ah, I missed the irony there..my apologies:)....Not used to many self-deprecating Americans, I must say!
As for the OP's question, I still think that a conventional drop-down works better if end-users are going to do the choosing. Let them choose the country they belong to, and let the software identify the radio frequency associated with it...so what if the frequencies are shared among countries? I know, this is yet again a technical solution. However, my contention is this - what is the benefit that the *USER* will get from this lumping together? One more thing - if as you say, for cultural reasons, you would not group certain countries together though they may share the same frequency, then by what user logic can you lump some and not others? If sharing of the frequencies is your criteria for grouping, should it not apply across the board irrespective of cultural/regional sensitivities? Just asking....
regards,
Reshma
________________________________
From: "Brian -dot- Henderson -at- mitchell1 -dot- com" <Brian -dot- Henderson -at- mitchell1 -dot- com>
To: Techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2012 8:40 PM
Subject: RE: Question for writers in New Zealand and Australia
Hi Reshma,
Being a natural born smart-aleck, it's difficult for me to restrain that
tendency, even when I know that it may not translate well in text. My
"problem" with "Canada/US" was not true.
In the U.S., the phrase "that's just wrong" is generally associated with
humor. I was simply pretending to be the type of American who won't
tolerate anything other than being in first place.
As a professional tech writer I would, of course, consider "Canada/US"
to be the more correct format for the grouping. Although as a customer
(as you pointed out), I might get a bit annoyed by not being able to
find my country under "A" or "U".
-Brian
From: reshma pendse [mailto:reshma_pendse -at- yahoo -dot- co -dot- in]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:38 PM
To: Brian Henderson; Techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: Re: Question for writers in New Zealand and Australia
Brian -
Why would you not appreciate seeing Canada/U.S.? Would the same reasons
apply to a Canadian not appreciating seeing U.S./Canada? In fact as a
techwriter, one should follow that convention 'cos it's alphabetically
correct. While an American might not mind U.S./Canada, I wonder how a
might Canadian feel, not finding his/her country in 'C', and finding it
lumped together with the U.S.?
Similarly, I feel a New Zealander might not appreciate being combined
with Australia. Also, on most websites, when there is a Country drop
down, we're used to seeing an alphabetical list where countries are not
combined with each other. It would be good to stick to the known
convention than try to establish a new one.
As an Indian, I would not like to see Bangladesh/
India/Pakistan/SriLanka combined in whatever order. Even though all 4
countries are geographically close, we're culturally vastly different.
Makes no sense!
regards,
Reshma
________________________________
From: "Brian -dot- Henderson -at- mitchell1 -dot- com" <Brian -dot- Henderson -at- mitchell1 -dot- com>
To: Techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012 11:41 PM
Subject: RE: Question for writers in New Zealand and Australia
I'm not so sure about that, Julie. I don't think it would hardly
register if I had to pick "U.S./Canada". Now, I would probably wonder
about a "U.S./Mexico" grouping, but only because it's unusual to see
them lumped together in anything other than a purely geographical
context. But neither would bother me if there's a reason to combine
them.
I should add: I would absolutely NOT tolerate "Canada/U.S.". That's just
wrong!
-Brian H.
-----Original Message----- From: Julie Stickler
I think most people would not appreciate seeing their country lumped in
as part of another country just because they are geographically close to
each other.
Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com
Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help. Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need.
Try Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.
