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.
Today, I think you (Kevin) should be tarred with a deer-foot stippler.
-----Original Message-----
From: McLauchlan, Kevin [mailto:Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:39 AM
To: Porrello, Leonard; Combs, Richard; salt -dot- morton -at- gmail -dot- com; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: RE: The GUI shall do...
And 87 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Er... that _was_ the spirit in which you made that comment, right?
For the record, I use "shall" in asserting requirements that must be met, come hell or come high water (the product is not allowed out the door if these aren't met), "will" for requirements that better be met unless there's a really good reason not to meet them, and other less imperative formulations for nice-to-have items that get included in a requirements doc. I do this because that's the standard around here for product and engineering requirements specification. I've seen the same language used for municipal infrastructure contracts and the requests for tender that led up to them.
I also object (whine?) to the arbitrary and/or malicious destruction of value in the language, when words are destroyed through stupidity and laxness (or ignorance that WILL not be instructed). I don't object to changes that preserve and increase utility.
My latest pet peeve is people who CHOOSE to destroy the distinction between I/we and me/us.
Yet I'm not in the camp that objects to the use of "they" and "their" when we've proven unable to agree on "s/he","his/her", "hir" or any of several other attempts to have a genderless singular personal pronoun (and associated possessive).
So with which brush am I being tarred, today? :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Porrello, Leonard
Sent: January-22-13 1:08 PM
To: Combs, Richard; salt -dot- morton -at- gmail -dot- com; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: RE: The GUI shall do...
Does anyone else find it ironic that the same group that whines about word transformation also objects to the orthodox use of "shall"?
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer without copying or disclosing it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See what's new in Doc-To-Help 2012 in a free webcast:
Read all about them: http://bit.ly/C1-webcast
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
