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.
Sorry...I didn't know it was a thread. I thought it
was thrown in as a fresh subject.
Correct. I would never use functionality in
documentation to warehouse workers.
Disclaimer: The following comment is only half
serious.
I worked with warehouse workers. I wouldn't use ANY
word that has more than 3 sylables or more than 6
letters, and I would use alot** of pictures.
** Sorry, couldn't help it :-) I DID see THAT post.
> As John Posada indicated, "functionality" has its
> place in writing for
> programmers. They make, use and understand a
> distinction between a
> "function" (count noun), a particular thing a
> program does, and
> "functionality" (mass noun), a set of stuff a
>
> In my opinion, the terms listed above are what make
> marketing literature
> sound overblown, and cause it to not be taken
Marketing literature has nothing to do with this. If
it appears in MarCom, it is bad writing just like
using any number of terms that we find in TechCom can
make a bad piece of techcom. Does finding poor words
in TecCom make all technical writing bad? No, just
instances of bad technical writing.
===
John Posada, Merck Research Laboratories
Sr Technical Writer, WinHelp and html
(work) john_posada -at- merck -dot- com
(pers) jposada01 -at- yahoo -dot- com
732-594-0873
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
