Re: Reasons for online

[Glen Accardo <glen -at- SOFTINT -dot- COM>]

> Glen, Are you users pleased with your indexes?  I'd be surprised if they
> were . . .  (I'm responding to you personally because I don't want this
> to be perceived as a slam.  My question is sincere.)


Yes, they are.  And no, you'd have to do a lot more than that for me to
consider the question a slam.

Let's look at a couple of "principles" of tech writing.  Rule number one
according to a gazillion experts is "consistency."  I agree.  If write a
section on frobbing snobnitzes, I must use the word "frob" when I mean frob.
If I also use "blork," "scrludz," and "plurquey" to mean the same thing
as "frob," I wrote poorly.  Granted, English gives us far too many synonyms,
and sometimes we aren't perfectly consistent, but hey, no one is asking
for perfection.  But, we generally do try -- just look at the number of
people trying to sort out "choose," "click," and "select."

Rule number two could be something like "make it easy to find."  How far do
we take this? If I used the word "frob" in the text, why include the others?
True, I should have entries like:

Frobbing,
   snobnitzes
   wankleborgens
   other stuff

Snobnitzes,
   frobbing
   color
   other stuff

This allows people to search for frobbing and snobnitzes and get to the
information.  I've had some entries posted in four or five places.  But,
I am completely opposed to idiots who think I should have used the word
"blankelquartchen" and insist that I rewrite the manual so that they
can find things.

If I give someone the ability to find any word in the text, what else can
they look for?

------------
glen accardo                         glen -at- softint -dot- com
Software Interfaces, Inc.            (713) 492-0707 x122
Houston, TX 77084

Did the Corinthians ever write back?