- Our goal is to create effective manuals
- Documents should be organized into a logical structure
- Documents should have comprehensive coverage of the material
- Just put the words in because they "sound good" (i.e. no thought at all)
- Assumed that these words mean the same thing to everyone (sadly, not true)
- Used the words to disguise the fact that the organization couldn't agree on criteria for authors
Using modifiers like this does give the organization a lot of flexibility: You can change the meanings to do whatever you need when the time comes. You pick the right definition for the documents you want to praise; pick a different definition when you want to punish the author. I can see the discussion now: "Your document structure isn't logical", "Yes, it is!", "No, it isn't!" The winner isn't the person with the right document structure, it's the person with the most clout in the organization--very advantageous if you're the person in charge.
What these words don't do is actually help the organization's authors do a good job (or, at any rate, a job that meets the company's criteria). When you use modifiers in your documents, you--more often than not--do the same thing: You fail to support your readers.
My recommendation: Omit all modifiers (adjectives, adverbs, phrases) unless you have a gun to your head.If you do include a modifier, make sure it means exactly one thing to both you and your readers--or just tell your readers what the word means to you.
Reading or read
- JLA: One Million by Grant Morrison
No comments:
Post a Comment