"the following" or nothing -- what is IM's preference? (was:"Next" or "the following"... )

[Pro TechWriter]

IMHO, I do think they do refer to spatial position, and we obviously
disagree about that. Being literal is part of my technical writer talent.  I
still don't use "above" and "below" in written documentation.

Not one employer that I have worked for in the last 15 years that has had
written standards used "above" and "below" in technical documentation. All
have considered it a maintenance issue, because of the reasons I already
mentioned. That's true even if the Chicago Manual of Style does imply that
it's okay.

 Maybe it's a regional preference, I am not sure. Of course, most of my
documentation has been created with an eye toward online use--not for hard
copy only.

However, I have used it in scientific publications (journals and such, like
"Geophysics"). Their requirement for using "above" and "below" for a
graphic, table, or reference, was that the paragraph with the statement and
the referred to object be shown on the *same page.*  But that's just them, I
bet ;-)

**** But back to my "original" question about using "following" or "next"
****
 >>>>>>  "Following" won hands down.<<<<<<<<<<

END of question.

PT


On 12/11/06, Chinell, David F (GE Indust, Security) <David.Chinell at ge.com>
wrote:
>
>  PT:
>
> When used to cross-reference material in the same work, "above" and
> "below" don't refer to spatial position. The mean the same as "earlier" and
> "later."
>
> MW 11 includes this definition of below: "5 : lower on the same page or on
> a following page"
>
> This convention is so well-established, that CMS doesn't even treat it.
> Open to any page to find such cross-references as:
>
> "8.85 What to capitalize
> ... Terms lowercased below may appropriately be capitalized in certain
> works if done consistently. ..."
>
> In other words, you don't have to revise anything to account for page
> breaks. If this still bothers you, you could follow the MS MoS suggestion
> and use "earlier" and "later."
>
> Bear
>
>



-- 
PT
pro.techwriter at gmail.com
I'm a Technical Technical Writer!