Re: Terminology and you

[Ken d'Albenas <kendal -at- AUTOTROL -dot- CUC -dot- AB -dot- CA>]

Len Olszewski <saslpo -at- UNX -dot- SAS -dot- COM> writes

>  Here's an issue that we are dealing where I am, and I'm curious who
>  among you faces the same problems.

>  Do the terms that your engineers or developers use to describe
>  phenomena, components, products or processes seem to be proliferating at
>  your job at an increasing rate?

Not too bad here.

>  Further, do you find that poor
>  terminology decisions at the research or development end of the business
>  torture *you* when it comes time to provide documentation?

YES!!!  YESSSS!!!

>  Do words
>  used imprecisely and interchangably by your R&D folks come back to bite
>  you, peppering your doc with ambiguity that increasingly seems to be out
>  of your control? (I hope not, but suspect the contrary.)


YES!!  But not just R&D people.  How about tech writers?  Check your
dictionaries for the meanings of the following words.  Even Webster's,
that horrid revisionist, hadn't capitulated and accepted the common
misuse, last time I looked:

- COMPRISE: synonym for "include;" NOT a synonym for "compose."
            ("Comprised of" is wrong.)
- REFERENCE (vt): NOT a synonym for "refer to."
                  (When you reference a paper, it means you put references
                  in it, not that you made reference to it.  Actually,
                  some reputable dictionaries don't even acknowledge that
                  "reference" is a verb at all.)
- PHENOMENA: plural of "phenomenon," NOT a singular form.
- CRITERIA: plural of "criterion," NOT a singular form.


I've found that a little humour goes a long way.  Put a large sign on
your wall or door quoting from the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland:
(forgive me, Lewis Carroll fans, if I've got the wrong character
or have slightly misquoted him):
   WHEN I USE A WORD, IT MEANS EXACTLY WHAT I WISH IT TO MEAN.
   NOTHING MORE, AND NOTHING LESS.

People who try to invent new words, or new meanings for old words,
tend to laugh even as they see themselves in that quote.


>  I wonder if others on this list have a terminology story to tell. This
>  is a pet concern of mine, and I'd be fascinated by any and all stories
>  listmembers would care to contribute. Object orientation and GUI's have
>  provided many thorny issues for us, terminologically speaking. What
>  about you?

A recent example: a filtering parameter they called a "tolerance
value" was 180 degrees opposite to what you and I would mean by the
term.  I went to the developers, but some of them were perfectly happy
with it.  After considerable wrestling with this
pretzel-logic software, I found myself writing 2 1/2 pages of blather,
plus pictures with circles and arrows.  Unacceptable.

So I started consulting with everyone I could think of.  Created a
positive atmosphere by opening the conversations with, "You're a pretty
articulate person; I wonder if you can help me with a thorny problem of
terminology..."

I gave it a day to bear fruit in their heads; meanwhile, I worked on
other things.  A day later, one engineer came up with "threshold value."  Everyt
pages to a single diagram.



I hope subscribers to this list will take Len up on his invitation to
share horror stories here.



Cheers,

Ken d'Albenas
(Alberta Chapter)             |  If I can't run into at least one    |
(-::                          |  mental block per month, I must not  |
kendal -at- autotrol -dot- cuc -dot- ab -dot- ca     |  be trying hard enough.              |


*****************************