32
edits
Talk:Technical Writing in the Digital Age: Difference between revisions
Talk:Technical Writing in the Digital Age (view source)
Revision as of 00:55, 1 December 2023
, 5 months ago→Subheading formatting: new section
(→Subheading formatting: new section) |
|||
| (40 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Layout and Lead== | ==Layout and Lead== | ||
Just to get this thing going, I have created the article, developed a rudimentary layout, and added a lead written by ChatGTP. '''All of this may be kept or changed'''. I would certainly revise or rewrite the lead. Questions, ideas, discussion, and comments about the project should be posted here. I'm looking forward to seeing what you all come up with this semester. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 09:38, 3 October 2023 (EDT) | Just to get this thing going, I have created the article, developed a rudimentary layout, and added a lead written by ChatGTP. '''All of this may be kept or changed'''. I would certainly revise or rewrite the lead. Questions, ideas, discussion, and comments about the project should be posted here. I'm looking forward to seeing what you all come up with this semester. —[[User:Admin|Admin]] ([[User talk:Admin|talk]]) 09:38, 3 October 2023 (EDT) | ||
:If no one else is going to address the lead being written by ChatGPT, I'm going to go ahead and jump in and make revisions.--[[User:Valerie Emerick|Valerie Emerick]] ([[User talk:Valerie Emerick|talk]]) 07:15, 28 November 2023 (EST) | |||
::The revised introduction looks great, Valerie! The only thing that I would suggest potentially changing is in the last sentence. I believe "our" or any first or second person pronouns is not aligned with Wikipedia's/Litwiki's neutral point of view. I could be wrong, though. Other than that, I love the new intro! --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 21:07, 30 November 2023 (EST) | |||
==Citation question== | ==Citation question== | ||
| Line 8: | Line 10: | ||
::{{Reply to|Admin}}Thank you. I have linked the first citation in the article (paragraph 1) to my Markel use under "Rhetorical Strategies." {{Reply to|mroma98}} and {{Reply to|RDrummond}}, in looking at the article history, it seems one of you may have added the Markel references under Ethical Considerations. I did not update those references yet because the oldest copyright date on my source is 2012, and I was also unsure of the page numbers. If you review the citation I added, and it is appropriate to reference, the shortened reference is <ref name="Markel">. Thanks. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 18:23, 13 November 2023 (EST) | ::{{Reply to|Admin}}Thank you. I have linked the first citation in the article (paragraph 1) to my Markel use under "Rhetorical Strategies." {{Reply to|mroma98}} and {{Reply to|RDrummond}}, in looking at the article history, it seems one of you may have added the Markel references under Ethical Considerations. I did not update those references yet because the oldest copyright date on my source is 2012, and I was also unsure of the page numbers. If you review the citation I added, and it is appropriate to reference, the shortened reference is <ref name="Markel">. Thanks. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 18:23, 13 November 2023 (EST) | ||
:::{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} Thank you, Beth. I contributed to the Ethical Considerations section. My Markel source was from 2009, but the same information appears in later editions, so the 2012 reference should work, too. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 16:26, 25 November 2023 (EST) | :::{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} Thank you, Beth. I contributed to the Ethical Considerations section. My Markel source was from 2009, but the same information appears in later editions, so the 2012 reference should work, too. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 16:26, 25 November 2023 (EST) | ||
::::{{Reply to|mroma98}}Thanks for replying. I found your information in the newer version and moved your citations so we can all use the same Markel source.--[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 17:33, 30 November 2023 (EST) | |||
:::::{{Reply to|Beth Kennedy}} Thank you for that, Beth. Looks great! It definitely flows better and more sensibly to have the same edition from Mr. Markel throughout the article. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 21:10, 30 November 2023 (EST) | |||
==Shortened Footnotes== | ==Shortened Footnotes== | ||
| Line 39: | Line 43: | ||
I'm struggling with my references and citations. It currently displays an error message. I updated the section "user guides" and tried to enter in my template and this is the error message I received. What am I doing wrong? --[[User:APitts]] | I'm struggling with my references and citations. It currently displays an error message. I updated the section "user guides" and tried to enter in my template and this is the error message I received. What am I doing wrong? --[[User:APitts]] | ||
:::{{Reply to|APitts}}The shortened footnotes just don't need to be enclosed with the "ref" parameters. I removed them, and it's good to go. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 12:47, 22 November 2023 (EST) | :::{{Reply to|APitts}}The shortened footnotes just don't need to be enclosed with the "ref" parameters. I removed them, and it's good to go. --[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 12:47, 22 November 2023 (EST) | ||
Just wanted to let everyone know to check to see if the reference you're using is already listed in the bibliography section. If it is, then just add the shortened footnote in the content. If it's not, then add the reference in the bibliography as well as the sfn in the content. Adding duplicate references in the bibliography cause errors to happen in the citations.--[[User:Natecole54|Natecole54]] ([[User talk:Natecole54|talk]]) 15:18, 27 November 2023 (EST) | |||
:Thank you for taking on that task, Nate! It appears to have turned out nicely. --[[User:Mroma98|Mike Romano]] ([[User talk:Mroma98|talk]]) 21:13, 30 November 2023 (EST) | |||
== Paragraph Blocks == | == Paragraph Blocks == | ||
| Line 201: | Line 208: | ||
Once we agree on the article's flow, we can edit each section with the same style ideals. Thoughts or recommendations? | Once we agree on the article's flow, we can edit each section with the same style ideals. Thoughts or recommendations? | ||
:{{Reply to|Amanda.Austin1}} I am currently working on User Experience. {{Reply to|Elaine Streeter}} mentioned adding the personas into this section. I think it could be possibly added to User Research, but I might find a better place for it in UX. I'm not sure it needs it's own section, but I could be overruled. Let me know, and I'll get it added in. For the smaller short sentence sections in Digital Documentation, I agree that these could be combined. I also think Examples of Digital Documents could go into Digital Documents. --[[User:Kamyers|Kamyers]] ([[User talk:Kamyers|talk]]) 10:49, 26 November 2023 (EST) | |||
:{{Reply to|Amanda.Austin1}} I support your organization proposal. RE: the long list of definitions and short sentences. I don't mind that format because it mirrors what's on Wikipedia, Dr. Lucas' text, and how the information is presented in the technical communication texts. It aids in keeping the info scannable. But I do agree to keep the Technical Documents and Digital Documentation sections similar in format.--[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 10:36, 27 November 2023 (EST) | |||
::{{Reply to|Amanda.Austin1}}I was about to reply to this when I saw you have already reorganized, which is great. I particularly think it was important to move "Historical Context" up.--[[User:Beth Kennedy|Beth Kennedy]] ([[User talk:Beth Kennedy|talk]]) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (EST) | |||
:{{Reply to|Kamyers}} :{{Reply to|Debbiebwolfe}} Hi everyone, I went ahead and rearranged the outline for better flow. I also left the Digital Documentation section like you recommended Debbie. I think now that the layout is good, we can go in and copy edit the article for any errors or clarity. --[[User:Amanda.Austin1|Amanda.Austin1]] ([[User talk:Amanda.Austin1|talk]]) 16:12, 27 November 2023 (EST) | |||
I have also been thinking about the article's organization. I think a lot of the sections can be combined so it's not so overwhelming. Below is my proposal, which would condense everything into 6 major sections instead of 13. I have not removed anything at all, merely restructured in a way that makes more sense (to me at least). I am happy to reformat this way and preserve everyone's text, but would love some feedback before making a major change. [[User:Emmakd|Emmakd]] Emma D. 17:41, 28 November 2023 (EST) | |||
:{{Reply to|Emmakd}} I don't mind the structure being condensed into 6 sections instead of 13. Just be mindful of the citation template code in the body that supports the shortened footnote code. --[[User:Debbiebwolfe|Debbiebwolfe]] ([[User talk:Debbiebwolfe|talk]]) 05:48, 29 November 2023 (EST) | |||
I went ahead and reorganized the sections. It was mostly just moving the several sections about digital writing into subsections underneath a single "Strategies for Digital Writing" section. I think this has messed with the formatting of some of the subheadings, I'll try to go back through and make sure everything is uniform, but it seems there are multiple people editing right now, so I'll wait until later as to not interfere. --Emma D. 18:55, 29 November 2023 (EST) | |||
== Late to the party == | |||
First of all - I want to apologize to the whole class for not jumping in sooner, but this has been a rough semester. Secondly, please let me know where I can help. I will be adding my section or building on one of the others this week, and I see a couple of sections that can be edited for conciseness and tightened up a bit. My life is still a bit of a trainwreck since my mother's death - but I'm happy to help where needed.--[[User:Valerie Emerick|Valerie Emerick]] ([[User talk:Valerie Emerick|talk]]) 21:23, 26 November 2023 (EST) | |||
I am also late to party, Valerie. I am happy to help out wherever, but I was thinking about expanding the UDC section to include IA and maybe reach into remediation in the Digital Documents section. Also happy to proofread wherever. --[[User:Ebyington3|Ebyington3]] ([[User talk:Ebyington3|talk]]) 21:21, 28 November 2023 (EST) | |||
== Citations in lead section == | |||
Please ignore. I know now. Thanks. @Natecole54 You removed a citation yesterday evening from the lead section stating citations should only be in the body of the article. I don't remember reading that. I was trying to add citations because the lead was generated with ChatGPT and has no citations. Where can I find that? | |||
== Images == | |||
Hey everyone! I was looking over the page and realized that the article is very long with no pictures or examples. If it pleases the group, I can go through and add pictorial examples from our textbooks and readings to go along with what we are talking about in certain sections and then add the ref to it? [[User:Ebyington3|Ebyington3]] ([[User talk:Ebyington3|talk]]) 06:42, 29 November 2023 (EST) | |||
:{{Reply to|Ebyington3}} That is a wonderful idea. --[[User:APitts]] | |||
:{{Reply to|Elbyington3}} Please let me know if you need anything help with adding picture. I'm going through and expanding as needed on subjects and organization. --[[User:JCaruso]] ([[User talk:JCaruso|talk]]) 09:39, 29 November 2023 (EST) | |||
== Multimodality == | |||
I know this topic is covered under the characteristics topic; however, I feel like this is essential to user experience as well. Unless I'm missing something, I plan to add and expand this approach/theory under user-experience referring to our texts as well and examples, etc. | |||
Please let me know if you disagree or think this is a bad idea. --[[User:JCaruso]] ([[User talk:JCaruso|talk]]) 10:30, 29 November 2023 (EST) | |||
== Subheading formatting == | |||
Hi all, I know someone worked hard on adding bold formatting to the sub-subheadings, but it wasn't applied to all of them (or new content was added without it since then). I personally think bolding them makes them harder to distinguish from the headings at the next level up. The sub-subheadings are in a different font and the spacing separates them from the body text, so I removed the bold. I think it's much more scannable this way. --Emma D. 23:55, 30 November 2023 (EST) | |||