Re: Textbook fodder

[Bill Burns <WBURNS -at- VAX -dot- MICRON -dot- COM>]

A somewhat lengthy discussion follows--

Nancy provides her company's standards and asks for feedback:

-- start with the verb
-- no extraneous theory or explanations
-- group similar activities as substeps under steps
-- use emphasis techniques sparingly

I think that she may have misunderstood what Emily meant by providing a step's
consequences in that step (maybe not).  This would be like a feedback statement
(using Microsoft's guidelines).  Here's what I mean:

        5.  Press <RESET>.  The system moves back to its starting position.

The statement following the imperative sentence clues the reader in to what
happens.  Why is this necessary?  Well, if the system doesn't reset, perhaps
the person has forgotten to perform step 3, so instead of resetting, the system
indicates an error.  Without the feedback, operators won't know what to
expect.  The feedback provides enough information for users to orient
themselves to the steps in the operation.

Of course, explanations of each action that occurs aren't always necessary (for
example, the movement of each system component isn't necessary).  Excessive
descriptions of consequences in warnings and cautions are also not necessary
and should be covered in training.

Naturally, the use of imperative mood helps.  For reasons I won't mention here,
I've had to maintain many of my department's documents in third person, so
to work around the problem of repeating the active party each time, I use
plurals and list the steps serially.  What I wind up with is something of
this sort:

        To qualify the system, operators do the following:

        1.  Press <1> to load a test wafer into the track.

        2.  Press <RUN>.  The system begins attaching the die to leadframes.

        3.  Watch the die placement on the postbond monitor and adjust the
            system micrometers to change the die position.

and so on.  This approach is nearly transparent, except when I have to use a
possessive pronoun (your vs. their).  If you notice, the third sentence actually
notes two actions.  In some instances, single actions don't describe a step
clearly enough.

I have a question about comma placement in the third sentence.  In the style
guides I've consulted, commas are used before the coordinating conjunction
in compound imperative statements.  However, since this sentence is not
technically in imperative mood (but rather third person), I've been leaving out
the comma as is normally done with compound sentences using single subjects.
Does this work for anyone else?

Bill Burns                            *
Assm. Technical Writer/Editor         * LIBERTY, n. One of imagination's most
Micron Technology, Inc.               * precious possessions.
Boise, ID                             *
WBURNS -at- VAX -dot- MICRON -dot- COM                 *                     Ambrose Bierce