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.
William Turner reports: <<I have worked in several Pubs departments
where the standard heading style was defined as requiring gerunds.
That works fine for me when the subject is Installing, Configuring,
Restoring...stuff like that.>>
Indeed, it works well in any situation where the heading introduces a
section of text that describes an action. The problem is that not every
section describes an action; a contextual overview, for example,
describes the key principles you need to know before you perform any of
those actions (e.g., a typography primer in a desktop publishing
manual).
In cases like these, it pays to remember that a style guide is a
_guide_, not a set of unbreakable laws. In fact, apart from the
unfortunately named "Hart's Rules"*--the author's no relation to me so
far as I'm aware--I'm not aware of any "style lawbooks" or "style
rulebooks"; they're all "guides". The problem with rigid stylistic
proclamations is the infamous hammer problem: if all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail, and you won't have much luck
using it with screws, bolts, glue, clamps, etc.
<<However, for an introductory chapter or section, am I breaking a
well-established standard by calling it, for example, "Introduction
to..." or "Overview of..."? I usually see, in similar situations, that
the author uses "Understanding ..." in order to conform to gerund
orthodoxy. For some unknown reason, that "Understanding ..." bugs
me.>>
I have no problem with "understanding", but I agree with you that in
some cases you're really trying to insert a screw or fasten a bolt by
pounding it on the head with a hammer. The question to ask is always
the following: What are we trying to accomplish with this heading? If
the answer really is to describe an action, then by all means use a
gerund.
On the other hand, if the answer it to describe a noun or provide
context, a nominalization is often the best way to go. That's why, for
example, the dominant model for articles in peer-reviewed journals
follows the IMRDAL pattern: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion,
Acknowledgments, and Literature. Nary a gerund in the lot, and yet the
model works so well that nobody has been tempted to replace it... and
trust me, if you give a bunch of editors any opening to revise a
publication or style guide, we'll take it. <g>
Bottom line: Use a style guide for guidance, not to replace your brain.
Guides provide proven recipes that work well in many situations, but
they don't cover all situations. When they don't, it's up to you to
figure out what you're trying to accomplish and proceed accordingly.
WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word features support for every major Help
format plus PDF, HTML and more. Flexible, precise, and efficient content
delivery. Try it today!. http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Doc-To-Help includes a one-click RoboHelp project converter. It's that easy. Watch the demo at http://www.componentone.com/TECHWRL/DocToHelp2005
