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: Functionality From:Sue Heim <sue -at- RIS -dot- RISINC -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 22 May 1996 12:37:53 PST
To Elsa's request:
> Howdy! Can I get some opinions on using the word "functionality" --
> is it just an inflation of "function" (some of my best friends are
> engineers) or is it worth the difference? Thanks.
Paul Dixon wrote:
> It's not a word. People think it is, but it isn't. Try using
> function or functions.
It *is* a word, and is listed in my Webster's under "functional." And
yes, I use it all the time (as in the "functionality of the
program..." or "we are changing the functionality of the program")
intending it to mean "the functions that a program is supposed to
include).
...sue
-------------------------
Sue Heim
Research Information Systems
Carlsbad, California USA
Email: Sue -at- ris -dot- risinc -dot- com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post Message: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Get Commands: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "help" in body.
Unsubscribe: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "signoff TECHWR-L"
Listowner: ejray -at- ionet -dot- net
