I would love to hear some general thoughts on this kind of thing. I'm one of those anal editor types (with apologies to my editor friends) who paid a lot attention to nuances like page breaks, orphans/widows, stringent compliance to style, and the like. I've always believed that those kinds of things separate the professional writer from the "wannabes."
Obviously, if the information is inaccurate, incomplete, or poorly worded, the doc doesn't meet customer needs, whether or not it has an orphan or widow. But assuming the information is good quality, how important are style nuances to members of this community? - Diane Rainer Heilke wrote On 01/12/06 16:29,: > There is one thing I've noticed in documentation, and I feel should be > considered an "error", or whatever the polite, editorial term is. :-) > > At the bottom of page 84, there is an "Incorrect:" followed by the example, > then a "Correct:". The associated example is at the top of the following > page. As an end user of documentation that did this sort of thing, I have > found this jarring. I would suggest a forced page break, and the "Correct:" > with example following all on the same (next) page. > > That's my first "put back" so far. :-) > > Rainer > PS I haven't seen mention of orphans and widows yet, but I also haven't > noticed any, either! ;-) > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > docs-discuss mailing list > docs-discuss at opensolaris.org -- Diane Plampin Manager Information Products Group CNS/Solaris Release and Install ph. 303-272-3165 (73165), fax 303-272-7736
