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.
> >
> > Unless you are writing for an academic audience , "in other words"
> and
> > "for example" are arguably better.
> >
>
> Boy, do I ever disagree with this statement.
I agree with Leonard (except that instead of "in other words," I generally use "that is," which is both shorter and a more literal translation of "id est"). In fact, I'd drop the qualifier "arguably."
In support of not using the Latin abbreviations, I'd point out that among a bunch of professional technical writers, Leonard was the only one to accurately specify the Latin meanings and their translations. What are the odds that any given member of the audiences we write for will understand what these abbreviations mean and how they're different from each other? I dare say a fair number of tech writers will not use the right one in a given situation.
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
303-223-5111
------
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-903-6372
------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.
