At 11:16 -0700 18/5/06, Daniel Emory wrote:
Nevertheless, this issue about numbering of titled headings, tables and
graphics seems to come up frequently. It's a valid issue, and it deserves more
discussion on the list.
Surely the answer here is 'horses for courses'? There are many areas where
--- Steve Rickaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Surely the answer here is 'horses for courses'?
There are many areas where numbering is either
appropriate or essential (engineering manuals,legal
documents, political documents, medical documents,
repair manuals, ya-de-yah), and others where it is
--- Linda G. Gallagher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't think it was necessary to single out my
response and call what I
said laughable.
Your unqualified statement that the only people left
who use such numbering schemes are engineers
communicating with other
]
meusers.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Emory
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Framers List
Subject: RE: Numbering Systems for Technical Service Manuals
--- Linda G. Gallagher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't think it was necessary to single out my response
and call
--- Anne Robotti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this a private email from Linda that you posted
to the list? How
completely rude.
=
My mistake, and I apologize to Linda. The Framer's
list, unlike some others, identifies the sender's
name, not the list's name as the
To
Framers List framers@FrameUsers.com
cc
Subject
RE: Numbering Systems for Technical Service Manuals
--- Anne Robotti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this a private email from Linda that you posted
to the list? How
completely rude.
=
My mistake, and I apologize to Linda
Excellent post Dan. Your post was exactly what I wanted (but was too lazy)
to post as soon as I saw the original post about numbering.
Far too often I see technical writers complaining about layout, format,
or organisation because they simply don't like it or it doesn't look
right. And then
|
| | |
|-+---
--|
|
|
| To: Gillian Flato [EMAIL PROTECTED],
framers@frameusers.com |
| cc:
|
| Subject: RE: Numbering Systems
I think it's still mostly used in environments where the manuals are
written to a standard
that requires it: MilSpec, BellCore, whatever
In civilian docs, I think it's largely faded away.
Art
On 5/16/06, Gillian Flato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guys,
snip
What's the general consensus on
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Art Campbell
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:20 PM
To: Gillian Flato
Cc: framers@frameusers.com
Subject: Re: Numbering Systems for Technical Service Manuals
I think it's still mostly used in environments where the manuals are
written to a standard
I do number, but never below a fourth level (1.2.3.4). I am not required
to do so by spec or policy. I personally find when I read long manuals
(e.g. a camcorder, digital camera, etc.) that when it is not numbered, I
do not assimilate data as well because I lose the hierarchy of
information. I
11 matches
Mail list logo
