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.
Hi gang. I have been super busy for the past five months developing
the Office Products You May Touch process guides at my company.
However, I have a few moments I thought I would summarize our last
debate between the number 2 and the number 6.
Hands down the winner was 6. Most of the people who responded found
the number 6 to be an elegant and flexible number. Moreover, 6 is a
perfect fit between 5 and 7. Other numbers simply do not seem to
provide the depth and character for a post 5 solution. Technical
communicators everywhere were resoundingly in favor of 6 over 2.
Many respondents found 2 to be a lessor number. As Tanner Natwhacker
of Eeyak Systems said ?I find 2 about 3 times less effective as 6.?
And Marion Sanctimonia of Treacherous Information Systems Inc said ?6
is just so much more user friendly for my needs. I also adore using
it with 9 as does my husband.?
I agree with many of the responses. While 6 does not have the
market share like 2, 6 is simply is a bigger and better number. I
found 6 of one or half a dozen of another to be very useful in my profession.
Also, when 6 is used with the exceptionally effective 8 attachment, you can 86
things.
2 on the other hand is a very popular number. Occupying a prime
location in the spectrum of numbers, 2 serves the pre-3 needs and
interfaces well with others like 1, 7, and the infamous 13. However,
2 lacks the sophistication of 6. Twice nothing is still nothing, and
that can really slow down the process of communicating when 2 heads is
better than one.
Also, 2 lacks the dimension we are all accustom to. Gretta Noog of
XNG Communications said ?I find 2 a little flat, simply lacking the
depth of 3. While 2 has the length and width I need for basic figures
and drawings, it does not go the distance to really communicate with
people.?
?I simply find 6 three times as effective as 2 when dealing with a
post 5 situation. I have tried other numbers like 5.25, but they do
not have the resonance of 6. I have been a technical communicator for
85 years and everyone I meet agrees with me.? Jim Letmetellyouhowitis
from Pretensia Consulting.
However, most technical communicators are stuck with 2 and thus have
to make do. Those that are fond of 2 note that 3 is a crowd but 2 is
perfect. Some also are quick to point out that 6 is a Prisoner to the
New Number 2.
Thank you all for participating in this lively and educational debate.
I think we have all learned that 6 is what we all want, but 2 is what
we often get. So, technical writers should not be afraid to use 2?s
when appropriate but 6?s are ideal.
Well, I better get back to work. I have to round up the writers for
our 746th class on how to write. In my 36 years of being a technical
communicator, you can never take enough classes in things you should
already know.
Andrew "I wanted it that way" Plato
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com