Re: Technical name for the #?

[John Hoppe <johnh -at- RADIONICS -dot- COM>]

I must agree with Wes Tracy on this. Though I too believe that one should
not clutter the landscape by making up new words or phrases when perfectly
accurate ones already exist, it seems that comprehension is the ultimate
goal here, and "octothorpe" is so arcane that it will likely cause more
confusion than clarity. "Pound" is so commonly used in phone messaging
systems (e.g., "For flight information, press pound") that it may be the
new standard term, since we all have such vast familiarity with these
messages now.

On a light note, the question of proper usage vs. "common" understanding
reminds me of a student of mine who once explained, in a paper, that a
certain character behaved as he did to avoid being "the escaped goat." I
would aboslutely love to know what mental picture this student conjured up
each time he (mis-)heard the word scapegoat.

John Hoppe


Wes Tracy wrote:
>One of the most basic tenets of tech writing is to write so the
>user can understand and I just don't think they will know what an octothorpe is
>(maybe I've led a sheltered life, but I first learned it through this thread).
>To maintain an allegience to the historical use, I could see putting the true
>name in apprentices after "number sign" or "pound sign", but both of those are
>widely used and understood, and I would have to use one of them for the sake of
>the user.

John Hoppe, Technical Editor
johnh -at- radionics -dot- com
Radionics, Inc.
781-272-1233  x277

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=