atw: Re: austechwriter Digest V5 #292

Nicely put Graeme,
The reason for the redundant numbering is indeed as you say: if one
breaks the other is likely to remain standing. I notice that many novice
writers slavishly use the convention (as Howard has found) in
documentation that doesn't warrant it. I assume it's because they feel
it makes their writing more dignified and official. 

But there is an essential difference between procedure writing and legal
writing: legal writing assumes that the reader will do the 'wrong thing'
wherever possible (look for loopholes, look for ways out of their
obligation, claim that they read the 3 as a 2, for example). Procedure
writing (should) assume that the reader wants to do the right thing and
only needs to know what the right thing is. Hence, no need for the
redundant numbering. 

-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Graeme Foster
Sent: Monday, 19 November 2007 8:49 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: austechwriter Digest V5 #292

The reason for the redundancy (eg three (3)) is a hangover from contract
writing or other applications where a misunderstanding or typo can mean
death - literal or otherwise. The double use makes sure the reader
doesn't get three million instead of three thousand or whatever.
Moreover, if there is a difference between the two (2),  an error
somewhere becomes immediately clear.  Clearly, the use of the convention
on non-critical applications becomes laboured and ridiculous.

I found it interesting that a government contract here some years ago
did get a number wrong while not using the convention, and the journos
had a field day implying that the barbarians were at the gate because
the hapless public servant hadn't known that a contract was invalid
because the writer hadn't known to (2) use the redundant double form. It
came as news 2 (to) me that a contract wasn't valid because of not using
this generally silly convention, but hey a good beat up is fun, n'est ce
pas?

There was a case of a bungee jumping company somewhere a while ago that
had a high platform and a low(er) platform, and they managed to kill
several of their customers by giving people from the low platform the
longer ropes. (welllll, they won't do THAT again, will they... oops
whoopsy they just did).  It has often exercised my imagination that they
might have saved someone if they had used the redundant form of
labeling. Then again, maybe not.

A relevant issue for techie writers is the number of people who die in
Aus each year because medicos and chemical companies get the decimal
place wrong in prescribing or administering drugs. Here the use of the
double numbering convention can literally save lives.

Cheers
Graeme



> austechwriter Digest  Sun, 18 Nov 2007        Volume: 05  Issue: 292
>
> In This Issue:
>               Can't print PDF
>               Junior technical writers for hire
>               Writing numbers in text [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>               Re: Writing numbers in text [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>               Re: Writing numbers in text [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:40:53 +1100
> From: Allan Charlton <allancharlton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Can't print PDF
>
> Hi Folks
> When I went to print a PDF - and PDF - I get an Adobe popup message 
> that says
>
> "Before you can perform print-related tasks such as page setup or 
> printing a document, you need to install a printer."
>
> I have two printers installed - a Fuji Xerox C2100 and a Lexmark 5470.
> The Adobe Help tells me to go to File>Setup, but that doesn't respond 
> because it thinks I don't have a printer installed.  Can anyone 
> explain how I can get Adobe Reader to recognise that I do have 
> printers installed and print documents for me?
>
> Thanks
> Allan
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Geoffrey Marnell" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Junior technical writers for hire
> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:07:29 +1100
>
> Dear austechies,
>
>
> I have just finished teaching another batch of would-be technical 
> writers through my Technical Writing and Editing course at Melbourne 
> University. A group of especially high achievers is keen to break into

> the industry as soon as possible. If you, or the organisation you are 
> working for, has a need for (or could use) a graduate-entry technical 
> writer, please let me know and I'll send you some good CVs.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Geoffrey Marnell
>
> Principal Consultant
>
> Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
>
> T: (+61 3) 9596 3456
>
> F: (+61 3) 9596 3625
>
> W: http://www.abelard.com.au
>
> _________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Writing numbers in text [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> From: Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:16:30 +1100
>
> Most usage guides have rules about when to write out numbers as words 
> (one, two, three, ...) and when to use numerals (1, 2, 3, ...).
> However,
> from time to time I come across passages written like this (from a 
> document I've just been reading):
>         This solution has been designed to support up to five (5) 
> users, and three (3) of these systems are being procured.
>
> I've seen this often enough to think there must be some rationale for 
> doing it this way, but I can't imagine what it is. It looks almost as 
> if the writer wonders whether readers mightn't understand the 
> 'written- out'
> forms.
>
> Anyone know the source of this style of writing? Is there a good 
> reason for it that I'm missing?
>
> Howard
>
>
> Howard Silcock
> Technical Writer
> Zare Pty Ltd
> Ph  02 6261 2073
> Fax 02 6112 2073
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Amanda Cat <amandacat22@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Writing numbers in text [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:27:51 +0000
>
> I've never seen this.
>
> I was taught the one, two, three...nine ten, 11, 12, 13 rule as well.
>
> I know that in military style sheets, when writing units of 
> measurement, that rule goes out the window:
>
> 3 seconds.
> 5 minutes.
> 4 Tonnes.
>
> But I've never heard of the scenario described below. Given they are 
> describing users and systems, I would have assumed "five users and 
> three systems".
>
> It does look like they're overcompensating with the old numerals, 
> there.
>
> Meh...??
>
> Amanda
>
>
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: atw: Writing numbers in text 
> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]From: Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: Mon,
> 19 Nov 2007 16:16:30 +1100Most usage guides have rules about when to 
> write out numbers as words (one, two, three, ...) and when to use 
> numerals (1, 2, 3, ...). However, from time to time I come across 
> passages written like this (from a document I've just been
> reading):         This solution has been designed to support up to  
> five (5) users, and three (3) of these systems are being procured.  
> I've seen this often enough to think there must be some rationale for 
> doing it this way, but I can't imagine what it is. It looks almost as 
> if the writer wonders whether readers mightn't understand the 
> 'written-out' forms. Anyone know the source of this style of writing? 
> Is there a good reason for it that I'm missing? Howard Howard 
> SilcockTechnical WriterZare Pty LtdPh  02 6261 2073Fax 02
> 6112 2073
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:32:28 +1100
> From: Janice Gelb <Janice.Gelb@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Writing numbers in text [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
> Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> Most usage guides have rules about when to write out numbers as words

>> (one, two, three, ...) and when to use numerals (1, 2, 3, ...).
>> However,
>> from time to time I come across passages written like this (from a 
>> document I've just been reading):
>>
>>         This solution has been designed to support up to five (5) 
>> users, and three (3) of these systems are being procured.
>>
>> I've seen this often enough to think there must be some rationale for

>> doing it this way, but I can't imagine what it is. It looks almost as

>> if the writer wonders whether readers mightn't understand the 
>> 'written-out'
>> forms.
>>
>> Anyone know the source of this style of writing? Is there a good 
>> reason for it that I'm missing?
>>
>
> The fact that many style guides warn against doing this very thing 
> leads me to believe that obsessive writers have a tendency to do this 
> and we all have to do our part in stamping it out :->
>
> -- Janice
>
> ***********************************************************
> Janice Gelb          | The only connection Sun has with
> janice.gelb@xxxxxxx  | this message is the return address
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of austechwriter Digest V5 #292
> ***********************************
>

**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject
field.

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with "unsubscribe" in the Subject field.

To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only to be 
read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally 
privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by 
any mistaken transmission to you. The RTA is not responsible for any 
unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed in 
this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the 
views of the RTA. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately 
delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy 
or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient.
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to 
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.

To search the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts: