[Question] What's the difference between a function and a feature?

[bhamv3]

So I'm trying to proofread and edit the manual for a technical device. I've noticed that the original writer uses "function" and "feature" pretty much interchangeably, and this seems odd to me. I feel like there's a difference between them. It may be a subtle difference, but the difference exists nonetheless.

I went online to look up the difference between these two words, and only got more confused. So now I ask you guys.

To me, a "function" is what the object is designed to do, the purpose that a user or customer would want it to fulfil. The function of a webcam is to transmit images over the Internet. The function of a car is to transport people and goods by consuming fuel. The function of a knife is to cut things.

A "feature" would be a quality of this object that makes its function easier to accomplish. If a webcam has the ability to pivot and track objects, that would be a feature. If a car has anti-lock brakes, thus improving its safety, that would be a feature. If a knife is made of a special metal that never goes dull, that's a feature.

So far, so good. The problem is that there can be ambiguity too. For example, let's say a webcam also comes with a microphone, and you can toggle the microphone via the software. Should the software say "click here to enable this feature" or "click here to enable this function"? Let's say you ask your car manufacturer if your car radio can contact aliens, should they say "this car does not support this function" or "this car does not support this feature"? And let's say you want to commit murder with the knife, would you say "the ability to murder someone is a function of this knife" or "the ability to murder someone is a feature of this knife"?

 

[tegid]

If I may: I'd say your definitions are fine, except that I'd also include in 'feature' the extra functions or sets of functions of an object. For instance, the microphone in a webcam would maybe be a feature?

I actually have no idea.

 

[HCGLNS]

Features compliment functions. So the microphone on the webcam is a feature, unless you are selling it as a function.

 

[bhamv3]

Ok, using the webcam as an example again, what if I want to talk about its zoom capabilities? Would I say "use the zoom function to see objects in more detail" or "use the zoom feature"?

 

[Jay]

Let's compare this example to women in general.

Function : Women have the ability to have sex with you.
Feature : Women want to have sex with you.

 

[PatrThom]

I can see myself slicing this all kinds of ways, but I tend to obsess over choosing exactly the right words to use to represent what's in my mind. In my way of thinking, to be considered a "function," it must be something which is intrinsic, whereas a "feature" would be something incidental. As a demonstration of that rabbit hole, consider your hypothetical webcam.

The webcam's primary function is to digitize images and transmit them (somehow) via the Internet. Note that I said primary function. You buy a webcam because you have images you want transmitted over the Internet. That's why you choose to buy a webcam and not a DSLR, a cellphone, or a pair of socks. A cellphone may be able to transmit pictures and/or video over the Internet, but that is a feature, and not its function.

I suppose the best litmus I could come up with on short notice would be to ask yourself the following. In the immediate context of the sentence you construct to enclose it, is the characteristic you are describing one of the reasons you would choose the product? Or is it instead a characteristic you would use to compare it against other, similar products? If the first, I would consider it a function (I choose a car because I want transportation). If the second, I would consider it a feature (I choose this car because it gets good gas mileage).

--Patrick

 

[Bowielee]

I always viewed it as this when it comes to mechanical/electrical stuff:

A function is a basic thing that [whatever] does.

A feature is something that [whatever] does, but is pretty much an extra.

for example: "The car functions just fine, but I opted for the feature pack that has cruise control and tinted windows."

If you go into biology, they have very distinct and different meanings. A function is a process that your body performs. ex. breathing, pumping blood, sweating.

A feature is a physical characteristic.

 

[bhamv3]

So would you guys say contacting aliens is not a function of a car radio, or not a feature of a car radio?

 

[PatrThom]

Honestly? I would say both. It is simultaneously not something the radio CAN do nor was it DESIGNED to do so.
So saying either by itself would feel technically incorrect to me.

--Patrick

 

[makare]

This thread makes me think of this bit

 

[sixpackshaker]

A function is a part of a system that actually works. A feature (according to Microsoft) means, that certain something extra that causes the whole system to fail.

 

[strawman]

A feature is simply a special or noted function. It's "featured". A feature doesn't exist without someone advertising it, pointing it out, or having it be particularly conspicuous.

 

[bhamv3]

Ok, so if a car has anti-lock brakes, which is pretty standard nowadays and thus rarely advertised, it wouldn't be a feature?

 

[PatrThom]

Anti-lock brakes are a feature of the car. "Anti-lock" is a feature of the brakes that are on that car. The brakes' function is to stop the car when the pedal is depressed.

--Patrick

 

[strawman]

Ok, so if a car has anti-lock brakes, which is pretty standard nowadays and thus rarely advertised, it wouldn't be a feature?

Car companies are still advertising it, so yes, it's definitely a feature.

Keep in mind that it doesn't have to be one or the other. An attribute could be neither featured nor a function. Seatbelts aren't (often) featured, and they aren't necessary a function in and of themselves - though they do perform a function when used appropriately. When they are featured, though, it may hint at the fact that the vehicle has few other features to recommend itself.

 

[bhamv3]

Ok, but in the context of writing a manual, seat belts are a feature, right? The manual for the car should say, "To use the seat belt feature, insert the tab into the recepticle until it clicks." You wouldn't say, "To use the seat belt function."

This is even though seat belts are very much standard in cars these days.

 

[strawman]

If the manual wanted to feature it, sure. But otherwise it would be saying feature every fifth sentence. Personally I prefer, "to use the seatbelt, push tab into seatbelt recepticle until it latches"

There's no need to use the word feature at all.

 

[PatrThom]

I have to agree with Steinman, here. In the sentence you mention, you are not describing the car at all. You are talking about the belts. The car is no longer understood to be the primary subject of the sentence, it is the belts which are now primary. And the belts are not a feature of the belts. No, the belts are a feature of the car. You do not invoke nor activate the seat belt feature of a car any more than you invoke or activate the transparency of the windshield. The fact that the windshield is transparent is neither a function of the car nor is it a feature of the car. The fact that the car has a windshield is a feature of the car. The fact that the windshield is transparent is a feature of the windshield, not the car. An opaque windshield would serve just as well to shield you from the wind (its designated function). The fact that it is much easier to drive when seated behind a transparent windshield would be the reason to choose a glass windshield over a steel one. Function v. feature, purpose v. preference.

--Patrick

 

[bhamv3]

Then I shall conclude that the original writer of this manual has no idea about how to write it at all, and edit it extensively.

 

[Bowielee]

Can I say, I'm such a language nerd... I love parsing apart language.