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. Is "errata" too antiquated? From:"Hart, Geoff" <Geoff-H -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA> To:"Techwr-L (E-mail)" <TECHWR-L -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Thu, 4 May 2000 08:33:52 -0400
Darren Barefoot is <<...going to include a photocopied "errata" sheet in the
box with the manual. ... is "Errata" still a commonly used and understood
term? I'm inclined to instead go with something like "Changes and
Omissions", but my colleague asserts that Errata is the le mot juste for
this sheet.>>
"Errata" is certainly correct, and should be easy to look up in any
reasonably good dictionary, but it's more useful in specialized (e.g.,
academic or literary) circles. For a general audience, "corrections" or
"updates and omissions" is easier; among other things, not everyone in a
typical office has access to a good dictionary, and it's rarely a good idea
to use the $100 word when the $1 word works just as well.
"Technical writing... requires understanding the audience, understanding
what activities the user wants to accomplish, and translating the often
idiosyncratic and unplanned design into something that appears to make
sense."--Donald Norman, The Invisible Computer
