Reviewer's comments (Re: Single-step procedures)

[Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- AXIONET -dot- COM>]

Christopher Knight <knight -at- ADA -dot- COM> wrote:
>
> Further to the posting earlier about numbers-for-steps and
> bullets-for-lists, my practice is to use a bullet for a >procedure with only one step. A reviewer has just asked me to
>change this to a number 1 "for consistency". I figure a number >1 implies more than one step.  What do you-all think?

If it makes you feel any better, I just got some comments
from a reviewer who wrote in large letters across the draft
that the pagination was all wrong and needed a major over-haul.

The problems:

1.) The reviewer didn't understand that blank pages had to be inserted
so that chapters started on the right. He thought the extra pages were a
mistake, and should be deleted.

2.) The draft was double-sided, and some pages had been turned around
the wrong way. The reviewer thought that the pagination was confused.

Well, I needed a laugh on late Friday afternoon...

--
Bruce Byfield
Freelance Technical Writer
(bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com)  (604) 421-7189
Job Bank Team, STC Canada West Coast Chapter
http://www.stc.org/region7/cwc/www/job_bank.html

"In a perfect world, it occurs to me now, I would write this in
blood, not ink. One cannot lie, if one writes in blood. There
is too much responsibility: and the ghosts of those one has
killed will rise up and twist the pen down true lines, change
the written word to the unwritten as the red lines fade on
the page to brown."
--Neil Gaiman, "Mr Punch"

 TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html