Re: Re[2]: Master/Slave

[Miark <miark -at- MIJENIX -dot- COM>]

> Still, members of that group may very well be a target audience for that
> product, for that manual, and for those words.

I don't think this scenario is in debate. At least not _this_ debate. We'd
probably all try harder to come up with a slave/master alternative if we
knew that our audience was exclusively a people sensitive to the issue.

> Why take the risk?

There is a risk whether you use master/slave or not. If you use it, you
risk offending some. If you don't use it, you risk lessening
the effectiveness of the communication. And that's what it
comes down to: a weighing of the terminology's effectiveness
and its offensiveness.

The fact is, master/slave instantly communicates to everyone while it
offends only very few.  In the absence of an effective alternative, the
risk is well worth taking, IMHO.

> The context cannot be for just the creators of technology and
terminology,
> it must be for all potential users as well.

I agree, but I'd also like to think that my readers can adopt/develop
new frames of context. Yes, there are some who might be taken back by
words like master and slave, but they get over it and the world goes on.
People learn. They grow.

I realize, BTW, that the cornerstone of technical communication is to
convert
technical jargon into common language, but I also think we do readers
a disservice by treating them like babies.

Mike

 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