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.
Re: Interfering with communication (was: I need help with Functio nali ty versus Function)
Subject:Re: Interfering with communication (was: I need help with Functio nali ty versus Function) From:David Dvorkin <DDvorkin -at- FRXSOFT -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 16 Jul 1998 10:58:08 -0600
Lorin, reread what you quoted from my post. We are obviously in
agreement that the writer should use the appropriate terminology
for the audience. I was responding to someone who seemed to
feel that the writer should impose on the audience the terms the
writer feels are correct rather than the terms commonly used by
that audience.
As for the correctness of what's commonly used, we aren't
discussing incorrect grammar overheard in an elevator. We're
talking about specialized terms common within an industry and
with specific meanings for people in that industry, terms moreover
that have no substitute commonly understood within that industry
-- which is why those terms came into use in the first place.
David Dvorkin
FRx Software Corporation mailto:ddvorkin -at- frxsoft -dot- com
(303) 741-8280
> ----------
> From: Lorin Ledger[SMTP:LLedger -at- TOTAL-CARE -dot- COM]
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 1998 10:41 AM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Interfering with communication (was: I need help with
> Functionali ty versus Function)
>
> David D. wrote:
>
> "Writers who refuse to use terminology common in their business
> > and expected by those who read their documents are interfering
> > with communication, not improving it."
> >
> This comment requires an answer!
>
> There is a difference between the project manager's use of terminology
> and the audience's understanding of terminology. If the audience is
> other project managers, then "Functionality" might be OK. If the
> audience is not familiar with the term "Functionality" ...
>
> IMO, the original post showed concern for the audience.
>
> Second point ... what is commonly used ain't necessarily correct,
> especially if it ain't precise. Our job as writers is to translate
> imprecise language and terminological usage into the clear use of
> language and terms.
>
>
