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: [BULK] Re: Use of word "reference" when cross referencing
Subject:Re: [BULK] Re: Use of word "reference" when cross referencing From:Lin Sims <ljsims -dot- ml -at- gmail -dot- com> To:Gene Kim-Eng <techwr -at- genek -dot- com> Date:Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:57:19 -0400
He's been here about 3 years, so most of the docs here use the phrase
"Reference <something> for more information." I'm willing to use it, even
if it gives me acid, as long as it's correct usage. Since I wasn't having
luck finding cites, I figured I'd ask around.
I may bring up the "use the $1 word, not the $10 one" argument at some
point, but there are better hills to die on than this. Heck, I just
finished copyediting one of his docs and didn't change ONE of them! :-D
(Note: I never use the word "please" when writing instructions. It's fluff,
and as remarked upthread, implies the instruction is an option rather than
a requirement.)
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Gene Kim-Eng <techwr -at- genek -dot- com> wrote:
> Lin posted this question in the context of a discussion with a co-worker.
> The key to what to do here is in whether it's just two writers disagreeing
> about what to do in new documents, or if the company's existing documents
> are already doing it.
>
> Gene Kim-Eng
>
>
> On 8/15/2018 7:47 AM, Mike McCallister wrote:
>
>> I like Gene's idea here. Our mainframe docs have had this use of
>> "reference" for a very long time, usually when citing IBM documentation
>> that we don't directly link to. It still jars me when I read it. If I'm
>> editing some section for another reason, I will often change 'reference' to
>> 'see,' but only if it makes sense.
>>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
--
Lin Sims
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com