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.
Subject:Re: Basic rules of technical writing From:Laura Johnson <lauraj -at- CND -dot- HP -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 23 Dec 1994 18:30:00 GMT
CJBenz (cjbenz -at- aol -dot- com) wrote:
: Let me ask you this: What good is technical correctness if no one
: understands it?
It isn't any good, but it's still better than being understandable
and technically incorrect. Here's why (exaggerated, of course):
Correct but incomprehensible: Put the frabbertigibbet in the oomphalo.
User reaction: I don't know what the hell they want me to do. I'm calling
tech support.
Comprehensible but incorrect: Put tab A into slot B. [Tab A *really*
needs to go into the oomphalo, but the oomphalo is hard to find and not
labeled, and the customers don't know what an oomphalo is anyway.]
Customer: Puts tab A into slot B, causing the entire frommwhal assembly
to be structurally unsound.
I propose -- no, I insist -- that the first scenario is preferable to
the second, even though it results in a call to tech support (which is
what we writers are supposed to prevent).
Can you give a (similarly exaggerated, if you like) example of sacrificing
technical correctness for understandability??
--
Laura Johnson
lauraj -at- fc -dot- hp -dot- com
Hewlett Packard NSMD
Ft. Collins, CO
