←back to thread

Red Hat Technical Writing Style Guide

(stylepedia.net)
262 points jumpocelot | 2 comments | 10 Jul 25 15:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.526s | source
Show context
GLdRH ◴[10 Jul 25 19:09 UTC] No.44524415[source]▶
Section 4.6 is certainly ridiculous, but I suppose you can just ignore it.
replies(3): >>44524795 #>>44524819 #>>44531156 #
jacobgkau ◴[10 Jul 25 19:53 UTC] No.44524795[source]▶
> Avoid neurodiversity bias. For example, avoid the terms "sanity check" and "sanity test",

This one seems a little much. I've used this term in work writing within the past week (not in official documentation, but I do also write official documentation). I tried to look up what the acceptable alternatives are (since Section 4.6 doesn't specify one for that rule), but it seems most possible alternatives already have other, distinct meanings: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/282282/near-univ...

replies(2): >>44525093 #>>44526245 #
perching_aix ◴[10 Jul 25 20:20 UTC] No.44525093[source]▶
I usually use "smoke check/test" or "smell test", but if you have a specific context in mind, maybe I can give you a different alternative phrase I use or two.

Definitely not something I'd force onto others either though.

replies(2): >>44526117 #>>44529403 #
1. josefx ◴[11 Jul 25 07:48 UTC] No.44529403[source]▶
> "smell test"

There are a lot more people who would fail that test and be offended when pointed out. That group includes some forms of mental illness as well.

replies(1): >>44530714 #
2. perching_aix ◴[11 Jul 25 10:55 UTC] No.44530714[source]▶
Don't people who "fail a smell test" and get offended do so because they they think it's a propestourous claim they're failing it? It's kind of the opposite situation, cause wouldn't that make them not take it on themselves by default and thus not wish for the nonuse of this phrasing?