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: purpose of arrows (LONG) From:Mark Forseth <markf -at- MERGE -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:20:57 -0500
Holly Turner wrote:
--Rip!--
For instance, it's easier for me to pick out the menu items in this
step:
1. Start-->Programs-->RoboHelp-->RoboHTML.
Than to find them in this one:
1. Open the Start menu, choose Programs, choose RoboHelp,
and then choose RoboHTML.
--Riiippp--
I think we all agree that, technically, each "choice" in Holly's
second example, above, is a separate step; the commas and
final conjunction "and" are dead giveaways. For example, a
step written:
"Fasten the frammis to the grommet and secure the latch under
the gizmo while holding the chassis inverted and reboot."
is contraindicated for tech writing because this example is
actually four steps, as the conjunctions indicate, not one.
But most agree that a single, fluid, menu-sequence step
can be written as shown in Holly's first example, above. Some
style guides prefer pipes ( | ) to arrow-thingies ( > ) in part
due to potential HTML SNAFUs and in part because some DTP
and WP software, such as Word, use the ( > ) character as, for
example, an "Advanced Search Operator." So, to avoid potential
hassles with such matters as Web code and software-specific
functions, some styles opt for the pipe ( | ) as a menu-sequence
separator.
This is not to say that the pipe does not or will not soon offer
potential hassles, but in using this character, I personally have
not encountered a software- or Web-code-related problem since
I've used this character, in this menu-sequence application, over
the last ten years.
Of course, menu-sequence expressions used in any given manual
are best defined and described, for the benefit of the reader, in the
often maligned Conventions section, but that's another battle field.
An alternative to the prepositional-phrase construct "From the
Start menu..." as a "contextual frame of reference" is the use
of bold for the main-menu or menu-bar (e.g., File, Edit, etc.) noun.
The following uses HTML tags to indicate bold start/end:
1. Select <bold>Start</bold> | Programs.
This construct helps maintain a single style rule for writing steps:
Begin each step with a verb. This also eliminates the
onerous task of attempting to consistently select an adequate
preposition for the alternative construct:
From, within, under, at, through, on, etc.
Subsequent steps expressing menu-sequence selections that
begin where a previous menu sequence left off do not require a bold
main-manu (or menu-bar) noun because the main menu (or menu
bar) is not the starting point:
3. Select RoboHelp | RoboHTML.
In the example above, assume a break (e.g., step 2) in sequence
between steps 1 and 3 where, for example, the reader had to enter
text into a dialog box.
This method works not only for sequential pull-down menus,
but for sequential windows, dialogue boxes, confirmation prompts,
etc. that occur as a consequence of some previous menu-selection
action.
Again, all this usage must be defined for the reader in the Conventions
section, but after having understood the "conventions used in this
manual," the reader navigates the software post haste.
