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.
Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization?
Subject:Re: Politically correct term for four-eyes authorization? From:Robert Lauriston <robert -at- lauriston -dot- com> To:Tech Writers <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:47:33 -0700
It's not redundant. It's just one person doing something and another
authorizing or approving it.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:33 PM, John Posada <jposada99 -at- gmail -dot- com> wrote:
> Redundant validation
> On Jun 19, 2015 4:02 AM, "Robert Fekete" <fekete77 -dot- robert -at- gmail -dot- com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have a problem with a term in our product documentation (and the UI as
>> well), and I'd like to ask for your collective wisdom.
>>
>> In line with the four-eyes principle, our product can require an authorizer
>> to approve (and possibly review) the actions of a user. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Learn more about Adobe Technical Communication Suite (2015 Release) | http://bit.ly/1FR7zNW