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.
Has anyone counted the number of times that the "Subject" heading
in e-mail has nothing to do with the content?
A few favourite examples:
- Responses to a request entitled "Advice on systems" evolved into
a long thread on dress codes. After someone finally changed the
heading to Dress Codes, the topic danced away again.
- More than half the recent mail entitled "Re: Job information"
contained a poll on schools with technical writing programs
instead.
- When people who get the List Digest respond to what they read,
their headers say, "Subject: Re: Techwr-L Digest <date>".
- For the past couple of days, we've backed into a discussion
of the STC Annual Conference, but the Subject headers keep on
echoing the Internet issue ("Re: Should STC be on this list?")
I know, I know, that's how good conversations work. You start
talking/ writing about X, but make a parenthetical remark about Y.
Someone else responds about Y, and says something audacious (Z).
Before you know it, everyone's debating Z. But the Subject line
still says X.
If your computer allows you to edit your outgoing mail header,
please review it as critically as you review the body text before
you hit the Deliver button. We are, after all, _communicators_.
Some people - especially newsgroup readers, I imagine - depend
on the Subject line to decide whether to read a posting or not.
Accurate "Subject" headers would also help the LISTSERV database
engine do its job. Based on my reading of the LISTSERV database
docs, I don't think it was designed to handle a Radar O'Riley /
Max Klinger system of filing (e.g., pink memos get filed under P).
In other words, if we can keep our Subject lines in sync with the
content, everybody will benefit.
What a concept.
Cheers, eh?
Ken d'Albenas
(-::
STC Alberta Chapter
kendal -at- autotrol -dot- cuc -dot- ab -dot- ca
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\ /
/ Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer, \
\ my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. /
/ Any resemblance between the above views and my own views is non- \
\ deterministic. The question of the existence of views in the /
/ absence of anyone to hold them is left as an exercise for the \
\ reader. The question of the existence of the reader is left as /
/ an exercise for the second God coefficient. (A discussion of /
\ non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the scope of /
/ this disclaimer.) \
\ - Author unknown, probably dead /
\ /
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
