Rules for Online Writing

8/12/2019 Rules for Online Writing

1/9

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 46, NO. 2, JUNE 2003 129

Which Rules for Online Writing Are Worth

Following?: A Study of Eight Rules in

Eleven Handbooks

JO MACKIEWICZ

A b s t r a c t Professionals, l ike t echnical special ists, h ave increasingly

needed to engage in onl ine communications such as email or posts to

onl ine discussion l ists. As the amount of their w r i t ing has increased,

r u l e s fo r o n l i n e w r i t i n g , s u c h a s , Ma k e s u b j e ct h e a d i n g s s h o r t a n d

descriptive, have emerged. H ow ever, th e extent t o w hich such rules

have become conventional ized, standard practice is not know n.

Consequently , th e extent to w hich w r i ters should concern t hemselves

w i th fol low ing these rules is unclear. In this study, I examine eight

r u l e s i n 1 1 h a n d b o ok s fo r o n l i n e w r i t i n g , a n a l y z i n g th e f r e qu e n cy

w i th w hich these rules are stated, the extent to w hich these rules

are consistently stated, and the extent to w hich fol low ing the rules is

ju st i f ie d . Th e r es u lt s s h ow th a t f ive of th e ei gh t r u les a re em er gi n g a s

s ta n d a r d p r a c t i ce b u t th a t r u l e s r e l a t i n g to g r ee t in g s a n d fa r e w e l ls i n

e ma i l s , emo t i co n s , a n d a b b r e v i a t i on s a r e n o t y e t s ta n d a r d i z e d .

I n d e x T e r m s Conventions of onl ine w r i t ing, ema i l , onl ine w r i t ing,

w r i t i n g h a n d b o ok s , w r i t i n g r u l es .

Manuscript received July 30, 2002;revised November 29, 2002.

The author is with the CompositionDepartment, University of Minnesota,420 Humanities, Duluth, MN 55812 USA(email: [email protected]).

IEEE DOI 10.1109/TPC.2003.813163

As more people begin tocommunicate online and as the

amount of their online writingincreases, especially the amount ofemail sent and received, rules foreffective online writing have begunto emerge. Rules like Ma ke su b je ct h e a d i n g s s h o r t a n d d e s cr i p t i v e can

be found in handbooks for onlinewriting, just as rules for traditional,print writing (such as Use few err a t h e r t h a n le s s w i t h c ou n t

n o u n s ) can be found in traditionalwriting handbooks. Rules foronline writing, however, are just

beginning to take shape; that isto say, what constitutes standardpractice in online communicationis not yet determined. Even so,the rules for online writing thatare imparted in handbooks haveconsequence. Professionals whoare not technical communicators

by trade but rather are inprofessions that demand effectiveonline communicationmanagers

or engineers, for exampleareoften concerned with how theypresent themselves. Such people

often consult a handbook foranswers to their questions about

writing online and for rules tofollow in order to adhere to theconventions of online writing (see,e.g., [1, p. 169]).

The substantial amount ofonline communication via emailalone suggests the importanceof effectively presenting oneselfonline and, therefore, of followingany established conventions

of online communication. Indiscussing the use of email inhigh-tech industries, for example,the International Data Corporationestimates that 60 billion emailmessages will be sent daily in2006. That number is up from31 billion email messages sentin 2002. Over half of thesemessages will be person-to-personcommunications [2].

0361-1434/03$17.00 2003 IEEE
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


2/9

130 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 46, NO. 2, JUNE 2003

However, just what constitutesthe conventions of online writingis not clear. Prior research onrules pertaining to print writingreports that the rules are oftenstated in different ways in differenthandbooks, and the degree to

which adhering to the rules isjustified varies substantially aswell [3][5]. Empirical researchinvestigating rules for online

writing is practically nonexistent(see [6] for an exception).

Additionally, the few emergingrules of online writing vary in thefrequency in which they are statedin handbooks, the extent to whichthey are consistently stated acrosshandbooks, and the extent to

which following them is justified.

The degree to which writers shouldconcern themselves with adheringto various rules for online writingis uncertain. Therefore, it would

be useful to know which rules foronline writing are given the mostattention in handbooks, whichare most consistently stated,and which are best justified. Inother words, it would be useful toknow the rules about which someconsensus has been reached.

Toward this end, this study has

three purposes:

to analyze the frequency withwhich certain rules for onlinewriting are stated in recenthandbooks;

to analyze the extent to whichthese rules are consistently statedacross handbooks; and

to analyze the extent to whichfollowing the rules is justified bythe handbook authors, as well as

by emerging research about onlinewriting.

In analyzing the treatment thatrules for online writing receive inhandbooks, this study can helpprofessionals who must determinefor themselves whether theyshould adhere to a rule.

PARAMETERS OF THESTUDY

To undertake these objectives,this study examined data from

11 recent handbooks for onlinewriting, dating from 1994 to2002 [7][17] and identified eight

well-known rules of online writing.

Reserve emoticons for personalcommunication.

Make subject headings short anddescriptive.

Use online lingo abbreviationscautiously.

Make signature files short.

Make email messages short.

Dont flame.

Avoid using greetings andfarewells in emails.

Dont type text in all capitalletters.

RULES FORONLINEWRITING

This section discusses the eightrules listed above in order of thefrequency with which they meritentries in the 11 handbooks.

Thus, the discussion begins withthe rule about emoticons, sinceemoticons are mentioned in all 11handbooks. More importantly, this

section also examines the extent towhich handbooks entries for therules agree and the extent to whichadhering to the rules is justified.

( 1 ) R e s e r v e E m o t i c o n s f o r

P e r s o n a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n All 11of the handbooks surveyedmention emoticons, facescomposed of punctuationthe

basic colon plus parenthesissmiley face :) , for examplebuthandbooks entries for thisrule display some variation. Offour handbooks that specify

where emoticons can be used,only two explicitly state thatemoticons are appropriate onlyin personal communications[10, p. 295], [13, p. 96]. Otherhandbooks specify appropriateuse differently. One states thatemoticons are appropriate inany sort of informal writing[15, p. 26], which presumablyincludes personal writing. Anotherhandbook, Baker and Bakers

H o w t o S a y I t O n l i n e , focuses onanother variety of writing, statingthat emoticons are appropriatein business communication. It isthe only handbook of the 11 thatexplicitly says so [8, p. 42].

In contrast, four handbooks statethat emoticons should not beused in business writing [7, p.111], [11, pp. 3536], [14, p.19], [16, pp. 5051]. In statingthis, these handbooks take adifferent approach to this rule,specifying not where writerscan use emoticons, but rather

where they should not. Thus, itappears that even though thereis no consensus about whetheremoticons are appropriate only

in personal writing, there is atrend toward avoiding emoticonsin business communication, whichis often more formal than personal

writing.

The entries for this rule discussedso far, though not consistentacross handbooks, are, at least,stated unambiguously. Not all ruleentries display the same degreeof specificity: two handbooksadvise writers to analyze their

audience before they use anemoticon [9, p. 33], [12, p. 31]but fail to provide suggestionsfor determining whether using anemoticon is appropriate. Thesetwo entries for the emoticon rule,then, make especially salientthe fact that no clear standardhas emerged in relation to usingemoticons, especially in regardto using emoticons in informal

business communication.

This rule generates variation,it seems, because there is stilldisagreement about whetheremoticons are useful shorthandfor conveying emotions, or whetherthey help a writer avoid the workinvolved in making deft wordchoices. Handbook authors who

justify emoticons use state thatthey can be a shorthand to helpcommunicate the tone that youdotherwise get from the otherpersons voice, facial expressions,and gestures [17, p. 58]. Those
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


3/9

MACKIEWICZ: STUDY OF EIGHT RULES IN ELEVEN HANDBOOKS 131

advising against their use remindwriters that emoticons areunnecessary: For centuries,

writers have been able to conveyhumor perfectly well using wordsalone. If you doubt your abilityto do so, just dispense with thehumor [11, p. 36].

In sum, this rule is not treatedconsistently across handbooks.It seems that a standard practicein regard to emoticons is stillemerging and that writers woulddo well, at least for now, to avoidthem in their business writing,especially in their formal business

writing.

(2) Make Subject Headings Short

a n d D e s c r i p t i v e Another rulethat receives treatment in manyof the surveyed handbooks is themandate to make subject headings(of emails and chat group posts,for example) short and descriptive.

Ten out of 11 handbooks statethis rule about subject headings.

The handbooks that contain anentry for this rule agree that

writers should create subjectheadings like Fridays MeetingPostponed rather than Fridays

Meeting Has Been PostponedBecause Lisa Cant Make It Then.The handbooks use a variety ofadjectives in imparting this rule foreffective email and other subjectheadings: clear [8, p. 35], [17, p.48], brief [10, p. 288], concise[7, p. 19], [17, p. 48], descriptive[10, p. 288], [9, p. 95], short [13,p. 95], [14, p. 3], and specific [16,p. 34]. Although the terminology

varies slightly, the entries conveythe same idea.

Handbooks provide severalreasons for adhering to this rule.One reason is that descriptivesubject headings help readersprioritize and retrieve emails andposts. Two handbooks specify thata subject heading like Hi isnthelpful to readers who are trying todetermine what they should attendto first [8, p. 35], [13, p. 4]. Otherhandbooks state that in additionto helping readers prioritize andretrieve messages, a descriptive

subject heading ensures that themessage will not be automaticallydeleted by systems set up to deletethose that lack them [9, p. 9], [11,p. 35], [2, p. 5], [14, p. 3]. Thus, sixout of the ten handbooks that statethis rule provide some justificationfor adhering to it. The frequency

with which this rule appearsin handbooks, the agreementthat handbooks display in theirstatement of it, and the pragmatic

justification that handbooksoffer in support of adhering to itsuggest a convention has emergedin regard to subject headingsand that writers would do wellto follow this rule, making theirsubject headings both concise anddescriptive.

(3 ) Us e On l i n e Li n g o

A bbreviations C autiously AsCrystal writes in his study of onlinecommunication, abbreviationshave emerged as one of the mostdistinctive features of online

writing [6, p. 84]. The popularity ofabbreviations such as B TW (b y t h e w a y), FWIW (fo r w h a t i t s w o rth ),and I M H O (i n m y h u m b l e o p i n io n )as a shorthand for often-usedphrases has, it seems, generated

the rule for online writing thatonline lingo abbreviations should

be used with caution. Ten ofthe 11 handbooks surveyed inthis study contain an entry onabbreviations. Seven of these statethat whether a writer choosesto use these abbreviations willdepend entirely on the audienceslevel of expertise [7, p. 92], [8, p.257], [10, p. 185], [11, p. 4], [14,p. 255], [16, p. 49], [15, p. 23]. Inother words, handbooks advise

writers to analyze their audienceand use abbreviations only if theirreaders will understand what theystand for.

Three of the ten entries departfrom advice about audienceanalysis; two advocate usingabbreviations to convey atech-savvy persona. One of thesestates that abbreviations make

writers sound seasoned orexperienced [12, p. 31]. The otherstates that abbreviations not

only save time and space but alsodemonstrate that the writer knowsthe lingo [9, p. 32]. Anotherhandbook, avoiding the issue of

whether or not abbreviations makea writer appear experienced orsavvy, states that abbreviationsaid in conveying the intended tone,helping writers express emotionalstates or qualify what theyresaying [17, p. 58].

In sum, it seems that writersshould carefully consider theiraudiences level of expertise

before using abbreviations forefficiency. Efficiency, after all, isnot effectiveness, and there is noguarantee a reader will understandan abbreviation like A W H F Y (a re

w e h a v i n g f u n y e t ? ). Moreover,writers risk alienating readers whoare not in the know about anabbreviations meaning.

It should be noted, however,that even though seven out ofthe ten handbooks that containan entry for this rule advocateaudience analysis, few explainhow to gauge ones audience todetermine whether abbreviationsare appropriate. Those that do

deal with the informal tone theseabbreviations can convey ratherthan on a readers understandingof what the abbreviation itselfstands for. One handbook statesthat the use of abbreviations

will depend upon whether oneis communicating in an internetchat group, an informal email,or a formal email, and statesthat abbreviations are notappropriate for formal email [8,p. 257]. Another handbook givesa more straightforward guideline,stating that abbreviations shouldonly be used if writers knowtheir recipients well enoughto address them by their firstnames [15, p. 20]. Thus, thishandbook gives a concrete way toassess whether abbreviations areappropriate, based on the level offormality of the communication.

Handbook authors who advocateaudience analysis say nothingabout whether recipients will
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


4/9


understand the meanings behindthe abbreviations. Granted, thisis a difficult variable to assess.

Writers should know, however,that particular abbreviationstend to be used in particularonline communities [6, p. 86]; forexample, in the alt.coffee chatgroup, the abbreviation * $ standsfor Starbucks. Thus, writersshould investigate the kinds ofabbreviations that get used beforeusing them.

In sum, writers would dowell to follow this rule bycarefully considering whetheran abbreviation conveys theirintended tone and whethertheir audience will understand

the meaning behind thecommunicative shortcut.

(4 ) M a k e S i g n a t u re F i le s

Short Yet another popularmandate for online writingadvocates using short signaturefiles in online writing such asemails and chat group posts.Nine out of the 11 handbookssurveyed contain an entry aboutsignature files; however, they varyin the number of lines of text that

constitutes a short signaturefile. Three handbooks state thatsignatures should be no morethan five lines long [8, p. 295],[9, p. 37], [13, p. 95]. Two otherhandbooks set the maximumsignature length at four lines [10,p. 104], [12, p. 31]. Yet anotherhandbook states that a signatureshould be no more than six lines,

but that a signature of four linesis preferred [17, p. 63]. Two otherhandbooks put the range for anacceptable signature length at sixthrough eight lines [7, p. 117], [14,p. 15]. Only one handbook avoidsprescribing a short signature file

by avoiding a specific maximumnumber of lines, stating that onlyrelevant information should beincluded [16, p. 41].

Although the handbooks surveyedfor this study are, for the mostpart, in agreement that signaturefiles should be short (though theydiffer on exactly how to define

that quality), most fail to justifywh y readers should follow thisrule. Only two handbooks provideany sort of reason for keepingones signature short. One invokesconcerns for the readers time,stating that most readers sufferfrom information overload [16,p. 41]. The other justification forfollowing this rule invokes concernfor the reader as well. McGovern,Norton, and ODowds The WebC on t e n t S t y l e G u i d e states thatextensive signature files makeprinting ones correspondenceconsume more paper and time [13,p. 95]. This justification certainlyhas merit, given some peoplestendency to print out the onlinecommunications, such as emails,

that they receive.

In any case, these results suggestthat writers should indeed strive tokeep their signature files short, but

just h o w s h o rt remains an openquestion. Based on this analysis,it appears that a signature file ofaround 56 lines is consideredacceptable. Moreover, a signaturefile of this length allows for theinformation most people considernecessary: name, affiliation,

address, phone number, and emailaddress.

(5 ) M ak e E m a i l Me s s a g e s S h o r t

Just as writers are charged withmaking their subject headings andsignature files short, so too arethey asked to keep the body textof their email messages brief. Outof the 11 handbooks surveyed,eight contain an entry for thisrule, stating that email messagesshould be short [8, p. 57], [10,p. 287], [14, p. 7], brief [13,p. 95], or succinct [11, p. 35].Unfortunately, handbook authors,for the most part, fail to indicate

what constitutes a short emailmessage; one, however, suggeststhat writers keep their messages toone screen or page in length [13,p. 37].

It seems that there is somejustification for adhering tothe rule. First, keeping emailmessages short shows respect

for a readers time [9, p. 37],[11, p. 35], [13, p. 95]. Second, if

writers keep their email messagesto approximately one screen inlength, they allow readers to geta sense of what theyre in forin regard to the length of themessage [16, p. 37]. In other

words, short messages could begood for psychological reasons as

well as reasons of respect, giventhat readers like to see the end ofa message. Moreover, empiricalresearch into email length suggeststhat email messages do indeedtend to be short. Accordingto Crystals study of 50 emailmessages, the average message(without greetings and farewells)has 10.9 lines per message [6,

p. 114]. Therefore, it seems thatwriters determining whether ornot they should consciously striveto adhere to this rule can restassured that their compliance

would adhere to what is typicallydone.

However, writers should also knowthat a focus on making emailmessages short may detract fromthe equally important need tomake the message convey what

is intended, i.e., to make themessage maximally effective aswell. Only one handbook advisesa balance between concisenessand a need to communicate anidea fully by means of a longeremail message. This handbookdistinguishes between frugaland short, and says that emailmessages should be the former,not necessarily the latter [9, p.10]. Only one entry for this rulecompletely bucks the trend towardshort email messages, stating,E ma il me ssa g e s co me in a l l s ize s

[7, p. 28]. Thus, while it seems thatwriters certainly will not be faultedfor showing respect for readerstime by making email messagesshort, writers should consider thepossibility that complex ideas mayrequire more exegesis than a shortemail allows.

(6) D ont Flame Writers who arerelatively new to online writing

will not have to wait long before
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/9


they encounter a chat group postor some other form of electroniccommunication that contains aflame. Flaming, or attacking aperson with name-calling or anger,has generated yet another rulefor how to write online, namely,that writers should avoid thepractice altogether. All of theeight handbooks that contain anentry about flaming convey, with

varying degrees of justification,that flaming is best avoided. Fourout of these eight simply state thatflaming should be avoided withoutproviding any explicit reason fordoing so [7, p. 4], [8, p. 103], [12,p. 15], [16, p. 48].

However, there are several

reasons that writers may wantto reconsider before sending offan angry message. First, mostmessages, once sent, cannot betaken back. Following this rule,then, keeps one from having todeal with the consequences ofthoughtless and reckless behavior.Second, writers should be advisedthat writing flame messagesrepeatedly can get one removedfrom a chat group or discussion list[15, p. 23]. Thus, it is important to

consider the practical implicationsof flaming: there may indeed beconsequences to ones actions.

Third, as pointed out in two of thehandbooks surveyed in this study[9, p. 11], [17, p. 54], there areusually better ways to respond toa written attackways that do notcontribute to an antagonistic tonein the online environment. In other

words, it is possible to use wit,humor, and tact to defend oneself[9, p. 11], thereby taking the higherground when responding.

What handbooks dont say aboutthis rule is that it may not applyin some online environments. Ifa particular online communityis characterized by antagonisticdiscourse, as many Usenet chatgroups are, responding tit-for-tatmay be less of a concern. Moreover,a writer who isnt a frequent visitorto a particular group or list maynot care whether or not other

visitors and members plonk

his or her messages, that is, settheir preferences so as not to seeany more messages from thatparticular writer.

Despite the fact that some onlinecommunities seem to foster flamemessages, a standard practice hasemerged; handbooks agree uponand justify the fact that flamingshould be avoided. Writers, then,can follow this rule withouthesitation.

(7 ) A v o i d U s i n g G re e t i n g s a n d

F a r e w e l l s i n E m a i l s The rulethat says to avoid greetingsand farewells in emailsa rulethat presumably grew out ofconcern for the readers timeis

not treated consistently acrosshandbooks. Although seven outof the 11 handbooks containan entry for this rule, only one,E -Wh a t? , states that writersshould avoid greetings [11, p. 35].Greetings like Dear Kathy orHello Frank are advocated inthree handbooks [7, p. 21], [10,p. 294], [14, p. 5], contradictingthe rule. Other handbook entriesappeal to audience analysis. Twohandbooks state that the writer

should consider audience carefully[12, p. 31], [16, p. 36]. Anotherstates that while it is indeedthe case that many people omitgreetings in their emails, omittinga greeting will contribute to a lessformal tone [8, p. 23].

Similarly, the seven handbookentries on using farewells in emailsfailed to make clear whether ahandbook user should follow therule. Four handbooks advocatefarewells such as Thanks, Jillianand Sincerely, David [7, p. 31],[14] or, at least, ones name [9, p.36], [10, p. 295]. Two other entriesstate that the use of farewellsdepends on the nature of therelationship between the emailsender and recipient [8, p. 23],[16, p. 39]. As with the treatmentof greetings, though, the majorshortcoming of the handbooksis that they offer little guidanceabout h o w to gauge familiarity

with ones audience. Finally, like

its treatment of greetings, E -Wh a t? prescribes against using farewells[11, p. 35].

This rule, or at least the componentof it that relates to greetings, hasreceived some empirical study,unlike most of the other rulesdiscussed so far. Crystals studyof 500 email messages showedthat about two-thirds of emailscontained an introductory greeting[6, pp. 100101]. The greetingsconsisted of a name, h i orh e l lo , orthe more traditional d e a r , as wellas some other variants. Crystalsfindings, like this studys findingthat handbooks display littleconsensus about this rule, suggestthat handbook users may be

better off ignoring advice to avoidgreetings in emails. It is importantto realize, though, that Crystalsemail data were not differentiatedfor personal and professionalemail, so it is impossible to tell

whether people participating in hisstudy used greetings with differingfrequency in different domains.

In fact, it seems that there isa good chance that greetingsare more common in personal

email than professionally orientedemail. Gains found that 63%of personal emails contained agreeting, whereas only 8% oforganizational-setting emailscontained a greeting [19].Gainss study suggests that therule about avoiding greetingsand farewells may stem fromobservations of how people use(or rather, do not use) greetingsin organizational email. Li Lan,studying nonnative speakersemail messages, found that 95%of nonnative speakers personalemails contained a greeting, andonly 46% of institutional-settingemails contained a greeting [20].

Thus, Li Lans findings alsosuggest that people are far lesslikely to use greetings in theirprofessionally-oriented emailsthan they are to use them in theirpersonal emails.

However, one thing to note aboutGainss and Li Lans studies
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/9


is that the institutional emailsthey studied were intra-institutionemails as opposed to email betweenpeople at different institutions.

That the participants in thesestudies were writing to coworkerscould have lessened the extent to

which they felt greetings in theiremails were necessary. After all, ifone has just seen ones coworkerSherry in the hallway, writing De a r Sherry ten minutes later in anemail to her might seem excessivelyformal. The rule about avoidinggreetings (and, presumably,farewells) in emails, then, seemsto hold in intra-institution emailcorrespondence. However,following the rule is farless justified in cases of

inter-institution and personalemails.

(8) D ont T ype Text in A ll Capital

L etters Although the rule thatprescribes against using all capitalletters is discussed in just six ofthe 11 handbooks surveyed for thisstudy, there is a strong agreementacross these handbooks entriesthat the practice of typing in allcapital letters should be avoided.

Whats more, the entries contain

strong justification for followingthis rule. The best reason foradhering to the rule is that text

written in all capital letters is moredifficult to read than text that isnot [7, pp. 1112], [10, p. 296], [14,

p. 9]. As stated in Th e E le me n tso f E -Ma i l S tyle , [P]eople recognize

words not only by their lettergroups, but also by their shapes.

When a word is all caps, you haveto read it letter by letter, ratherthan subconsciously recognizinggroups of letters [7, pp. 1112].

Another good reason for followingthis rule is that all caps isconsidered shouting in onlinecommunication and is, therefore,considered rude [7, pp. 1112], [8,p. 41], [10, p. 296], [14, p. 9], [16,p. 47], [17, p. 61].

In sum, handbook users whoadhere to this rule are bothincreasing the readability oftheir writing and following a

well-established norm of internetculture, two good reasons forchoosing to follow a rule.

CONCLUSION

The differences across handbooksentries for rules of online writingsuggest that conventions of online

writing are still emerging. Thisanalysis of 11 handbooks entriesfor these rules shows not onlythat some rules are considered

more worthy of discussion andare more frequently stated acrosshandbooks, but also that somerules are stated differently indifferent handbooks (i.e., therules are stated inconsistently)

(see Table I). Consequently, thesefindings suggest that writers neednot follow all rules of online writing

with the same stringency since notall rules are considered equallyimportant. Nevertheless, threeout of the eight rules for online

writingMake subject headingsshort and descriptive, Dont flame,and Dont type text in all capitallettersare consistently stated inall of the handbooks that containentries for them (see Table I).

This uniformity in handbooksstatements of these rules suggeststhat a standard has emerged inthese cases and that writers canfeel secure in following these rules.

Upon consideration, it is not

surprising that these rulesgenerate such consensus. In allthree cases, there are practicalreasons for following the rule.

Writers who follow the rule aboutsubject headings facilitate retrievalof messages and reduce therisk that their messages will bedeleted. Writers who adhere tothe rule about avoiding text typedin all capital letters increase thereadability of their messagesand avoid the chance that their

messages will be interpreted asantagonistic or simply obnoxious.

The pragmatic justification givenfor following these rules is someof the strongest found in thehandbooks for any of the rules.

TABLE IFREQUENCY AND CONSISTENCY WITH WHICH

HANDBOOKSSTATE THE RULES
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


7/9


There are also practical reasons toavoid flaming others in ones onlinecommunication. As noted above,

writers who follow the rule aboutavoiding flames not only diminishtheir chance of being kicked out ofa chat group or discussion list, butthey also decrease their chanceof being plonked, or ignored, byother contributors. In addition, theconsequences of breaking this ruleare potentially far more seriousthan the consequences that resultfrom breaking any of the otherrules. An angry email messagesent in haste, for example, canhave serious ramifications later.In other words, not sending flamemessages helps writers avoid thenegative consequences that can

result when this rule is disregardedout of momentary impulsivity andthoughtlessness.

Conventions for online writingseem to be emerging in relation tothe rules about short signaturefiles and short email messages.Both of these rules highlight theneed to balance efficiency in ones

writing (i.e., saying what oneintends with the fewest possible

words) with effectiveness (i.e.,conveying what one intends withthe effect one intends). The rulesabout making email and signaturefiles short emphasize efficient

writing, but they fail to account

for situations that may requiremore w ords , not fewer, to createeffective communication. Thus, itseems that prioritizing efficiencyis one emerging conventionof online communication.Understanding the priorityhandbooks can place on efficientcommunication as opposed toeffective communication, writerslooking to handbooks for answersto questions about the length oftheir emails and signature filesmay want to offset this emphasis

by considering how they can bestconvey their intentions, ratherthan limiting themselves to shortor brief communications. After all,most handbooks fail to quantify orspecify what constitutes a short

or brief email. Moreover, theyfail to agree on an appropriatesignature file length. Therefore,even if writers wanted to carryout these rules, just how, exactly,they should go about it remainsunclear.

This study has suggested thatnot all rules for online writingare standardized. When it comesto rules that attempt to guidethe use of communicationshort cutsemoticons andabbreviationswriters, it seems,should rely more on theirown judgment than on theirhandbooks. More than the other

rules, these rules governingcommunication short cuts areintertwined with the tone one

wants to take with a particularaudience, as well as ones analysisof an audiences familiarity withthe meanings of emoticons andabbreviations. Depending ona writers intended audience,emoticons can be either effectiveshorthand for conveying tone andcreating a tech-savvy persona ora juvenile nuisance. Similarly,abbreviations can be catalyststo effective communication andmarkers of in-group statusor ostracizing impediments tounderstanding. The category into

which ones choice falls is, inthe end, determined by real and

particular discourse situations.

Because of their relation toaudience, it is likely that thesetwo rules display more variationacross their entries. Writersshould be aware, then, thatno clear standard, at least interms of handbooks treatmentof them, exists for these rules.Instead, writers must determinefor themselves whether or notthese shorthand devices will

be understood and consideredappropriate by their audiences,especially given the fact thathandbooks provide little guidancein the matter.

TABLE IICONDITIONS FOR FOLLOWING THE RULES

FORONLINE WRITING


8/9


Finally, the rule banning greetingsand farewells in emails isconsistently broken in handbooksentries for it, more so than anyof the other rules (as Table Ishows). Based on the handbooksnear consensus that greetingsand farewells are both expectedand beneficial, writers, it seems,can feel secure in both greetingtheir addressee and closingtheir message with a farewell.In doing this, writers maintainthe relationship between writingan email and writing a letter,modeling their email messagesafter standard letter format.

The rule about greetings andfarewells, like the rules about

short subject headings, emailmessages, and signature files,stems from a concern forefficient communication. Thisrule, however, contrasts inone important way with theseother rules that are aimed atencouraging efficient writing: byavoiding greetings and farewells,

writers dont save their readersany substantial amount of time.Leaving greetings and farewells outof email messages cuts, at most,

two to four anticipated words(the addressees and (sometimes)the writers names) and two tothree phatic words (such as dearand sincerely). On the otherhand, short subject headings,signature files, and, especially,email messages can potentiallysave readers some time.

Interestingly, although the ruleabout greetings and farewells

is the one most often broken inhandbooks, it is also the rulethat has been subject to the mostempirical research. As discussedabove, research suggests thatthe choice of whether or not toleave a greeting or farewell outof ones email message may bedetermined, first of all, by whetheror not the email is personal orprofessional in nature. In personalemails, writers can feel free to usegreetings and farewells, as thisseems to be the convention thathas emerged [19], [20]. If emailis professionally oriented, writersshould make a decision aboutgreetings and farewells based on

whether it is intra-institution orinterinstitution email. It seems

that intra-institution emails aremore likely to lack greetings andfarewells [19], [20] and, thus,

writers may choose to forgo thesefeatures of letter writing whenemailing coworkers. In contrast,it seems that writers shouldnot yet abandon greetings andfarewells in their inter-institutionemails. Research suggests thatemail communication betweeninstitutions resembles thediscourse of letter writing more

than it does the discourse ofconversation [19], [20].

Based on entries in 11 handbooks,this study has examined the extentto which writers should concernthemselves with following eightpopular rules for online writing.

Table II summarizes the findingsof this study, ranking the rulesfrom those that writers shoulddefinitely follow to those that

writers should not. In addition,Table II summarizes the conditionsunder which the rules should befollowed.

As professionals engage in moreonline communication, they arelikely to become increasinglyconcerned about how they presentthemselves online. It is critical,then, that these writers be able todetermine which rules for online

writing they should follow andwhich they can disregard. Theresults of this study suggest thatfive of the eight rules examinedhave become standard practiceand that writers can feel securein following them. However,the results also suggest that in

some cases, the decision aboutwhether or not to follow a rulewill be highly context-dependent.For instance, the formality with

which a writer must address hisor her reader might influencethe decision. Such variables arenot easily accounted for withinthe confines of a rule. In thesecases, a standard practice hasnot yet emerged. Therefore, untilstandards emerge, writers mustuse their own judgment regarding

the effects their rhetorical choicescould have on their readers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Research for this article was sup-ported by a grant from the Chan-cellors Office of the University ofMinnesota, Duluth. I am grateful toKathy Riley and Frank Parker fortheir comments on this article.

REFERENCES

[1] S. M. Katz, Part IIHow newcomers learn to write: Resources forguiding newcomers, IE E E Tr ans . P r of. C om m u n., vol. 41, no. 3, pp.165174, 1998.

[2] International Data Corporation. (2002, Sept.) Email volumewill continue to surge. W ireless New s [Online]. Available:http://www.10meters.com.

[3] H. B. Allen, The standard usage in freshman textbooks, E ngl is hJ ., vol. 24, pp. 564571, 1953.

[4] J. Mackiewicz, Gauging prescriptivism in writing handbooks, IEEETr an s . Pr of. C om m u n., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 5558, 1999.

[5] W. E. Meyers, Linguistics in textbooks: A forty-year comparison,Am er. Sp eech, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 3068, 1995.
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


9/9


[6] D. Crystal,L a n g u a g e a n d t h e I n t e r n et . Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press, 2001.

[7] D. Angell and B. Heslop,The E lem ents of E - M ai l S ty le: C om m u nic ateEffectively via Electronic Mail . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1994.

[8] K. Baker and S. Baker, H ow to S ay i t Onl in e: E v er y th ing You N eed t o K now to M as ter the N ew Language of C y ber s pac e. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2001.

[9] N. Carbone, Wr i t ing Onl ine: A S tudent s Guide to the Inter net and Wor ld Wide Web, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2000.

[10] J. L. Clark and L. R. Clark,C y ber S ty le! The Wr i ter s C om plete D es k Reference. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western, 2001.

[11] EEI Press,E -W h a t ? A G u i d e t o t h e Q u i r k s o f N e w M e d i a S t y l e a n d U s age. Alexandria, VA: EEI Press, 2000.

[12] M. P. Halio, Wr i t ing on the Inter n et: Finding a V oic e Onl ine. Orlando,FL: Harcourt Brace, 1999.

[13] G. McGovern, R. Norton, and C. ODowd, The Web C ontent S ty le Guide: A n E s s entia l R efer ence for Onl ine Wr i ter s , E di tor s , a ndM anager s . London, UK: Pearson, 2002.

[14] S. Miller, E-Mail Etiquette: Dos, Donts, and Disaster Tales From PeopleM agaz ines Inter net M anner s E x per t . New York: Warner Books, 2001.

[15] D. Munger and S. Campbell,R es ear c hing Onl ine, 5th ed. WhitePlains, NY: Longman, 2002.

[16] H. Schultz, The Elements of Electronic Communication. Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon, 2000.[17] V. Shea, Netiquette. San Rafael, CA: Albion Books, 1994.[18] D. Crystal,L a n g u a g e a n d t h e I n t e r n et . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

Univ. Press, 2001.[19] J. Gains, Electronic mailA new style of communication of just a new

medium?: An investigation into the text features of e-mail, E ngl is h for Specific Purposes, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 81101, 1999.

[20] L. Lan, Email: A challenge to standard English?, E ngl is h Today , vol.64, pp. 2329, 2000.

J o M a c k i e w i c z received her Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from Georgetown University,

where she studied politeness strategies used in writing center tutoring interaction.

Currently an assistant professor in the Composition Department and LinguisticsProgram, University of Minnesota Duluth, she teaches science writing, technical

writing, and cyberculture. Her research interests include discourse analysis,

technical writing, and research methods. She has published in IEEE TRANSACTIONS

ON PROFESSIONALCOMMUNICATION, Techni cal Communi cat i on, and CLI C: Cr ossr oads

o f L a n g u a g e , I n t e r a ct i on , a n d C u l t u r e .

Documents

Rules for Online Writing