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:consistency in terminology From:"Sella Rush" <sellar -at- mail -dot- apptechsys -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Mon, 15 May 2000 18:57:11 -0700
I'm curious about how other tech writers rate consistency in terminology. I
don't mean technical terminology such as male/female connectors. It's
pretty much accepted that conforming to industry terminology is crucial.
I'm talking about the terminology (nouns and verbs) that you have to make up
as part of describing a task or concept.
For example: I'm working on a sys admin help file for a database security
tool. One of the features is the ability to set "permissions" to control
access to certain information. Toward the end of the project, I did what I
always do--I went through the help file to standardize my terminology and
found that, in various places, I'd said: set permissions, define
permissions, turn on permissions, and assign permissions.
I think maintaining consistency on this level is a basic part of my job--I
don't want to introduce *more* confusion through the so-called help. If I
were faced with such a document, I'd notice the discrepancy between
"setting" permissions and "defining" them and would be sensitive to the
possibility that they're two different concepts.
Recently a developer commented at this level of detail. He's a good guy, so
I paid attention. He said (paraphrasing): can't we assume a level of
intelligence that can grasp that set and define are synonymous within the
context?
The obvious answer is, of course, "not necessarily". In an ideal world we
would strive for consistency across the board. But it made me wonder how
high other tech writers rate this level of consistency.
Obviously, I rate it pretty high, second only to information completeness
and accuracy. I want my readers to be clear about what they're reading, not
have to think about possible alternative meanings, not have to think about
the words themselves at all, only the information being conveyed. If the
sloppiness causes confusion, doesn't it negate the value of accurate
information?
I'm just curious about whether I'm being just a teensy bit obsessive.
Sella Rush mailto:sellar -at- apptechsys -dot- com
Applied Technical Systems (ATS)
Silverdale, Washington
Developers of the CCM Database
Demo: www.apptechsys.com/demo
