Multiple Index Entries: Your Input, Please...

Beth Agnew beth.agnew at senecac.on.ca
Tue May 23 15:20:04 MDT 2006


User analysis should give you some idea of what terms your readers 
prefer to search. Some of your audience may never think to look up 
"users" when what they want to do is add people to a system, or add 
accounts, or enable privileges, etc. There are as many ways of thinking 
about things as there are people who think. :-)
If your index is small, use the most common and simple entry form -- 
"adding ... (users, accounts, etc.)"; if you have lots of room for an 
index, redundancy is a good thing.

Case in point: I worked on an employee handbook that had people 
frustrated because they couldn't find the policy for taking time off 
work when a family member passed away. The index did not have 
"Compassionate leave" or "Death of family member" or "Leave to attend 
funeral" or anything that would normally come to mind. The policy was 
entitled "Bereavement". 99% of the employees didn't think of that word 
to look it up, especially when they were stressed by a death in the family.
--Beth

Keith Hansen wrote:
>  In many cases, it's possible to have two (or more) index entries that
> refer you to the same page.  Example:
> * Index Entry No. 1:  Users, adding to system . . . p. 264
> * Index Entry No. 2:  Adding users to system . . . p. 264
>
> Here are my questions:
>
> Question No. 1:  
> * Is one of the above formats considered preferable to the other?  
> * I prefer Index Entry No. 1 because it starts with the broad category
> you are working with (users) and then lists the specific action you are
> performing with that category (adding to system).
>
> Question No. 2: 
> * In a large index (say, dozens of pages), I would probably include both
> entries in my index.  But what if the index is quite brief (say, five to
> 10 pages)?  Would you still include both entries?  
> * My view is that when the index is brief, it's easier for the user to
> quickly scan the entire contents.  Thus, both entries may not be as
> necessary.
-- 
Beth Agnew
http://www.301url.com/podcasting

Professor, Technical Communication
Seneca College of Applied Arts & Technology
Toronto, ON 416.491.5050 x3133
http://www.tinyurl.com/83u5u




More information about the TECHWR-L mailing list