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: Overuse of Bulleted Lists From:Toni Rizzo <Toni -dot- Rizzo -at- M -dot- CC -dot- UTAH -dot- EDU> Date:Fri, 17 Feb 1995 21:27:31 -0700
In reply to messages below:
Bullet lists are a great way to present info concisely without
unnecessary verbage. They stand out, and the white space is useful.Bullet
lists can also be used effectively along with tables in info mapping. The
head at the left directs the reader's attention to the list and they get
the info they need at a glance. This format is great for instructional
documents and procedural manuals.
Toni
Toni -dot- Rizzo -at- m -dot- cc -dot- utah -dot- edu
On Fri, 17 Feb 1995, George F. Taylor wrote:
> In-Reply-To: Re: Overuse of Bulleted Lists, From: Ron Miller <RSMH -at- AO
> 1. Bullets are not much of an improvement for large text blocks unless
> they provide some discernible pattern and/or improve communication
> between writer and reader. The white space helps - but not much!
> 2. How do bullets provide a way to locate information at a glance if
> there is no cognitive hook?!
> 3. Graphically, bulleted lists are not far removed from the use of capital
> letters and underlining used when we used typewriters.
> George
> >Sorry, but I must disagree. I like to use bulleted lists for the following
> >reasons: > >* prevents large blocks of text. > >* provides a way to locate
> information at glance > >* makes it easier for the reader. > >This should get
> us off on a tangent.