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.
One other thing I'd recommend is using the term, in. or inch/ft or foot. It
takes a bit more room, but I've always found it's too easy to make a typo
by using the ' and ". The one exception might be in figures, although I'd
still probably try to spell it out if possible.
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 6:04 PM, wondersofone -at- gmail -dot- com <
wondersofone -at- gmail -dot- com> wrote:
> Thanks for your validation! I will run with this.
>
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Peter Neilson <neilson -at- windstream -dot- net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 08 Oct 2016 18:19:36 -0400, wondersofone -at- gmail -dot- com <
> > wondersofone -at- gmail -dot- com> wrote:
> >
> > So it may just be more efficient (and accurate) that I simply reflect the
> >> measurement given to us by the manufacturer. So now I can focus on the
> >> formatting issue.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, because you are getting the information in various formats and
> > precisions, you are constrained to keep those things exactly the same, as
> > much as possible. The customer looking for a 1-7/8 inch item will
> probably
> > not buy if it is presented as 1.875 inches or (worse) 1.9 inches. The
> > former value is correct but not expected, and probably not trusted. The
> > latter (rounded) is simply incorrect, and taints the entire document.
> >
> > There is a lot of "engineering get-it-done style" knowledge among the
> > people who use a combination of US and SI measurements in their work. For
> > example, 11 or 12 mm is somewhat close to 7/16 inch for some purposes.
> 3/4
> > inch is very close to 19 mm. "Hand me a 19 mm wrench." "Sorry, don't have
> > one. Here's a 3/4. It'll do."
> >
> > Threads on bolts, however, are totally incompatible between US (coarse or
> > fine) and SI. Worse, some seem as if they are fitting if you get them
> > wrong, until after several turns they jam.
> >
> > The manufacturer's presentation of physical values is "as expected" and
> > should be retained. The hyphen-and-solidus format (1-7/8) that you expect
> > to use is generally acceptable.
> >
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and
> content development | http://techwhirl.com
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as kathleen -dot- eamd -at- gmail -dot- com -dot-
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>
>
> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
>http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and
> info.
>
> Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online
> magazine at http://techwhirl.com
>
> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public
> email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
>
--
Kathleen MacDowell
kathleen -dot- eamd -at- gmail -dot- com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com
