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[1]: 'author' as a verb From:SANDRA CHARKER <scharker -at- OZEMAIL -dot- COM -dot- AU> Date:Mon, 13 Mar 1995 22:14:57 +1000
Ummm... I don't really get it either. But shades of meaning are often not very
get-able.
If an appeal to usage means anything, after I posted that msg I came across
this definition in a 1989 book, Shneiderman, Ben & Kearsley, Greg
_Hypertext Hands-On!_:
"authoring is the term used to describe the creation of hypertext databases.
There a number of authoring principles to be followed in organizing document
and deciding how to link them together..."
Maybe it's not that "to author" makes the process of structuring a document,
etc., more evident. It's that the process of structuring is more explicit for
hypertext documents, etc., and people are looking for a different word because
"to write" doesn't include that explicit process.
>>BTW, I don't mean to say that "writers" haven't always had to structure
>>documents and libraries. We have, but that part of the work is hidden
>>when we say that we "'wrote' an acquisitions procedure manual".
> Hmmm... I don't get it. What is it about the abominable word
> "to author" that makes the process of structuring a document,
> etc., any more evident than it is in "to write"?
