: Re: Using uncommon abbreviations Something which I see all the time in (popular) science writing is the use of abbreviations to indicate concepts. For (a made up) example: So when we're dealing

@Cofer669

Vote Up Vote Down

IBM is a bastion of abbreviation use. Three-letter acronyms (TLAs) are literally the foundation of the company -- along with the misnomer calling all abbreviations acronyms (even ones that don't spell out a new word).

In IBM style, even cutting edge research papers and journal articles used the "define on first reference" rule for new terms and abbreviations. The argument was that, once ingrained, an abbreviation speeds comprehension. My feeling always was that authors used the technique to shorten writing time more than as a way to help their readers. Sentences ended up looking like alphabet soup.

In this age of digital content, it is a little easier to search back for the first reference, but this still "impedes progress" as David points out. The idea of a list of abbreviations used in a piece was never common practice, but it absolutely should have been. (Of course, in HTML each reference to an abbreviation can be tagged so that, in many browsers, a pop-up appears with the abbreviation, obviating the need for a search. Authoring can be done using software that matches the term against a global taxonomy so that the accurate description of even the most uncommon abbreviation is always used.)

(0)

Login to post a comment!