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.
Another fairly common solution in online help and in computer
documentation is to use a "single step" dingbat, like a small
black triangle, for one-step procedures.
In docs and help, we always present procedures the same way so users
can spot them easily. (Nothing is more aggravating--especially if
you're as impatient and cranky as I am--than searching through text
that all looks alike to find out what to do.)
We use these two "techniques":
-tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, tell them
what you've told them
-use typographical cues to make procedures easy to find
To do something, follow these steps: (in bold)
1. Do this.
2. Do that.
You have done something. Now you can...
In the docs, I don't have any one-step procedures. Every now and then,
I have to construct two steps where I could have had one, but in those
rare cases, it's worth it for consistency.
In the help, I use the one-step triangle dingbat for one-step
procedures. Otherwise, I use the same rules as the docs.
A.
--
Alexia Prendergast
Senior Technical Writer
Seagate Software mailto:alexiap -at- sems -dot- com
>----------
>From: Ridder, Fred[SMTP:F -dot- Ridder -at- DIALOGIC -dot- COM]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 1997 5:37 PM
>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject: RE[2]: Single-step procedures
>
>I've had much the same reaction as Geoff Hart--at first
>believing that numbering a single-step procedure is
>foolish, but eventually coming around to the belief that
>structural consistency is probably important enough
>to warrant the foolish-looking number.
...
>Various posts on this thread have suggested at least
>three good approaches to solving this problem:
><snip>
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
