Re: Acronyms--RTFM

[Matt Ion <soundy -at- MAIL -dot- BC -dot- ROGERS -dot- WAVE -dot- CA>]

On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:25:00 -0800, Wilcox, John (WWC, Contractor) wrote:

>1. Prime Directive: Consider the audience.

I dunno about you, John, but I would not include "RT(F)M" in a manual in
the first place.  Regardless of the spelling, it's not an appropraite
acronym for your average documentation.  After all, if you were alreading
R'ing TFM, you wouldn't need to be TOLD to RTFM.

>>From my list of Secondary Directives:
>
>1.  Be complete.  If you're sure the reader won't understand what you're
>saying without the F, by all means include it.

The only "readers" one would generally use this particular acronym with,
are readers who know exactly what it means, and who would understand the
frustration it conveys.

>2.  Be correct.  Since manuals do not engage in sexual intercourse, RTFM
>conveys incorrect information.

Huh?

(In modern vernacular, "fuck" has many different meanings besides its
sexual connotations.  I used to have an extensive textfile on this.)

>3.  Be consistent.  Do you use the F elsewhere in your tech writing?

Oh, please.

>4.  Be clear.  RTM is clear.  Inserting the F forces the reader to view
>the instruction through a filter.

"Forces"?  Get a grip.

>5.  Be concise.  The F increases the word count by 33% unnecessarily.

That's the first point you've made on the issue that makes any sense :-)


 Your friend and mine,
 Matt
 <insert standard disclaimer here>
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posts: mailto:techwr-l -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu
Commands: mailto:listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g. SIGNOFF TECHWR-L)
Archives: http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html,
	http://www.documentation.com/, or http://www.dejanews.com/
Subjects: JOB:, QUESTION:, SUMMARY:, ANNOUNCE:, or none of these.