[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Author Index (this month)][Thread Index (this month)][Top of Archive]

reasons, political or otherwise, for omitting info (was @internet standards and clarity)

Subject: reasons, political or otherwise, for omitting info (was @internet standards and clarity)
From: "Monique Semp" <monique -dot- semp -at- earthlink -dot- net>
To: "TechWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 13:44:06 -0700

Something political is going on here. Nobody sane dictates
an explicit REQUIREMENT for lack of clarity, unless they
have an ulterior motive.

I do hope that you have been preserving all the IN-WRITING
exchanges on this matter. If it's not useful in an
employed-anymore-or-not situation, it might still come
in handy at annual review time, when your "plays well
with others" is called into question.

Since this topic has morphed into an important broader discussion, I'm changing the subject line.

Fortunately for me and the situation that gave rise to the initial thread, the issues aren't nearly as complex, nor the people involved as nefarious as implied by some of the replies.

Knowing the people involved, I'm sure that it's largely a matter of lack of clarity & precision in their own writing -- a nicely ironic scenario here :-). And we're having a sensible discussion all 'round to get to where everyone is on the same page with regard to providing the info that's most necessary to ensure that the doc readers successfully do what they need to do.

Yes, sometimes that means that there are reasons for a product's docs to *not* sound like there's one hard & fast method or set of rules (or given standard) that can possibly address all the possible situations. That's part of deciding what is appropriate content *within the context of how things are in real life* vs. some theoretical ideal.

Now, back to work.

Happy long weekend to those who will be on holiday for the US Memorial Day weekend,
-Monique

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.

http://bit.ly/doc-to-help

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

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

Follow-Ups:

References:
Re: "Internet Standard (STD)" - phrase known by Web programmers ?: From: Laura Lemay
Re: "Internet Standard (STD)" - phrase known by Web programmers ?: From: Monique Semp
RE: "Internet Standard (STD)" - phrase known by Web programmers ?: From: McLauchlan, Kevin

Previous by Author: Re: "Internet Standard (STD)" - phrase known by Web programmers ?
Next by Author: Re: TIP - PDFs from Word show inserted image filenames (uponmouseover)
Previous by Thread: RE: "Internet Standard (STD)" - phrase known by Web programmers ?
Next by Thread: RE: reasons, political or otherwise, for omitting info (was @internet standards and clarity)

[Top of Archive] | [Author Index (this month)] | [Thread Index (this month)]

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads