RE: throughput

["Combs, Richard" <richard -dot- combs -at- Polycom -dot- com>]

Daniel Feiglin wrote: 
 
> That's correct, but hardly user friendly. T'put is absolutely ghastly - but
> semantically clear in my context.
> 
> But joking aside, what about "Thr.put", "Thr put" or "Th put"? We also use
> things like "Tx Power", "Rx Power" or just Tx and Rx in the same context.

Know your audience. But I find it hard to believe that your audience would have trouble understanding kbps, Mbps, or whatever throughput measure applies. And I can't imagine that "Th put" or some such nonsense would be clearer to anyone than the widely accepted abbreviation for the actual throughput measure. 


Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
303-223-5111
------
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-903-6372
------






^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help. 
Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need. Try 
Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days. 
http://www.doctohelp.com

---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- 

To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/archive%40web.techwr-l.com


To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info. 

Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:
http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/listinfo/techwr-l-chat