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.
I think saying "aka" without the periods to signify it's an acronym may
cause more confusion, a.k.a. people may not understand.
However, in your glossary, I think you are right to avoid it. The idea would
that one term could also be called something else could cause enough
confusion already. What ever happened to controlled vocabulary? (rhetorical
question).
So my gut tells me to provide definition for the correct term, and add
entries for the alternate terms that say "see term1". If a number of terms
are related, "see also..." and "related: " work well.
I think.
-Tony
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Monique Semp
<monique -dot- semp -at- earthlink -dot- net>wrote:
> In a table of terms and definitions that I inherited, alternate terms are
> explained as “aka <alternate-terms>”. Any thoughts on whether people will
> understand this?
>
> (And I’m deliberately not saying what “aka” is so that I get a less biased
> response :-).
>
> Thanks,
> -Monique
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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-
