Style Manuals

[Lynette Petendree <Lynette_Petendree -at- INSTINET -dot- COM>]

See, this proves my point in how Microsoft really believes they now control
manuals as well.  First, this seems unethical. (I want to say illegal, but it's
too strong a word although it feels like it's more appropriate.) Can Microsoft
really determine the language and terminology used because they've made the
program? And, if they can, then maybe they should just have their technical
writers come up with some generic documentation and everyone who's getting a
Microsoft Certified software program can sack their technical writers.  I feel
sorry for the end users who are going to be using the GUI and stumble on
language because it's now Microsoft-speak...how Big Brother of them!!

I forgot to mention Strunk and White's Elements of Style.  Ah to remember the
good old days when we used to be writers and trusted to write!


>I am preparing a proposal for Microsoft, and from informal talks with
>Microsofties, it is clear that if you want a Microsoft Certified software
>program (so the logo can be carried on the package), you better follow as
>many ofd their guidelines as possible. Especially when it comes to the GUI
>used in the application.

>I still prefer the Chicago Manual Of Style.

>Bob Maxey

>>Has everyone out there lost there minds!!  Does anyone remember when REAL
style
guides were used (Chicago Manual of Style, etc.)?  I hate to remind
everyone,
but the Microsoft Manual of Style is nothing more than a style manual taken
from
an in-house technical writing department that was published because that
in-house technical writing department happens to be MICROSOFT!!

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=