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.
Subject:Re[2]: Safety & Manuals From:Carma C Allen <ccallen -at- CCGATE -dot- DP -dot- BECKMAN -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 13 Jan 1995 10:54:13 -0800
--Boundary (ID oZ2dXbGMm7eM6pOfDyYo3g)
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
OK=C4I committed the cardinal sin for technical writers: I didn't com=
municate=20
clearly.
We don't err on the side of caution by repeating warnings and caution=
s. We=20
state the warning once at the beginning of the procedure. What we *do=
* try to=20
include are warnings about *all* hazards that could logically result =
=66rom=20
incorrectly following the procedure.
I am suitably humbled by my failure to communicate effectively.
And so forth. The upshot is that we've got more warnings and cautions=
on the
page than procedural steps. It's kinda like having instructions on ho=
w to
drive from Point A to Point B, but every time there's a new line of=
=20
instruction, you get "WARNING: Fasten your seat belt. Failure to comp=
ly could
result in injury or death." But of course, you buckled the seat belt =
in the
first step....
I'm afraid that readability suffers, to a point where users will simp=
ly stop
following the manual altogether. Does this make any sense?
Rick Lippincott
Eaton Semiconductor
Beverly, MA
rlippinc -at- bev -dot- etn -dot- com
