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: Correct usage "i.e." and "e.g." ? From:Roger Mallett <roger -at- CSICAL -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 6 May 1998 08:38:05 -0700
Now that the "readability" arguments have started surfacing, I have a
question.
For the sake of readability should we abandon all acronyms? How do we
decide which ones to abandon (if any)?
For example (i.e., e.g.,), in a document that refers to the "Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation" (commonly referred to as FDIC), hundreds
of times, which would be more readable, the acronym or the full name?
I, as well as you, can think of many other examples (for you Latin
experts, is "examples" shortened to "g.s"?).
It seems funny to me that here we are arguing readability on this thread
(assuming our readers can't readily understand the acronyms), while a
companion thread (see Nontechnical Technical Writers) is arguing that
writers must be more technical (the assumption is that the reader is
technical enough to understand what is being said).
---------------------
Roger Mallett
Control Systems
(714) 458-5040 x 239
>----------
>From: sng[SMTP:sngotler -at- GOTLER -dot- COM]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 8:15 AM
>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject: Re: Correct usage "i.e." and "e.g." ?
>
>
>A recent client required me to use the following terms:
>- Instead of "i.e.,", use "that is,"
>- Instead of "e.g.," use "for example,"
>
>I really like the way this turned out. It generates much more readable
>text.
>
>He reasoned that the abbreviated terms were useful in an era when
>writers
>had to write with their hands and when printers had to manually set up
>their presses. They saved a lot of time. In this day of word
>processors,
>there is little argument left for using them, unless you just want to
>confuse and slow down your readers. If you don't want to type the words
>out, define macros to do it for you.
>
>----------
>From: Bob Morrisette
>Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 11:03 AM
>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject: Re: Correct usage "i.e." and "e.g." ?
>
>From: Justin Moss <Justin_Moss -at- RTA -dot- NSW -dot- GOV -dot- AU>
>
>>Would you mind giving me your impression of the 'correct' usage of these
>>abbreviations ?
>
>My advice is - don't use them. They don't translate well and many
>people don't know what thay mean. Most style guides outlaw the terms.
>
>Bob Morrisette
>writer1 -at- sabu -dot- Eng -dot- Sun -dot- com
>
>
>~~~
>Find contractor info at
>http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/contractors.htm
>
>
>~~~
>Find contractor info at
>http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/contractors.htm
>
>
