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.
> Regarding using different fonts to distinguish keywords, use of fonts in
> technical documents in general is a style decision you make before
> beginning to write. I've heard the arguments about the distractive
> quality of having too much boldface on a page, and it depends upon the
> number of things in a book you emphasize or distinguish by using a
> special font....
I'm also from the "camp" that believes the use of too much boldface or
different fonts decreases the readability of a page. When showing
the usage of a function in an example, I display what the user would enter
in a Courier (monospace) font on a separate line. However, when using the
function name in descriptive text, I display it in the same font as the
rest of the paragraph. IMHO, the same goes for parantheses; if parantheses
are a required part of the function syntax, then I would use them on a
separate line that illustrates the syntax. For example, "The syntax of the add
function is:
add (<element_name> <location>)
where ..."
If you haved defined something as a function and your users understand
that functions typically have required and/or optional arguments, what
is the purpose of the extra empty parantheses next to the function_name()?
(i.e., parantheses could be used to emphasize that a function
has arguments, but is this emphasis necessary or meaningful?)