TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: Information Mapping vs. Usability Testing of Documentation
Subject:Re: Information Mapping vs. Usability Testing of Documentation From:"Doc" <doc -at- edwordsmith -dot- com> To:"techwr-l" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:37:27 -0800
> 1. From the front panel, press Cancel.
> 1.1 if the LCD says blah, do this.
> 1.2 if the LCD says blah, do this.
>
> 2. Do such and such.
>
> Again, my concern is how usable is this method for end-users with minimal
> education?
>
> All feedback is welcome.
The reason for the apparent failure (noted in other responses) in the
usability of your Information Mapping example is that there's a task
analysis flaw--Step one has been smeared over into step two. This is too
common, because User Education material has a (plausibly deniable)
undercurrent or emphasis on getting to the end of the procedure as fast as
possible.
The "right" way to analyze steps is to group the action with its result, in
a step:
1. From the front panel, press Cancel. <--action
The LCD <shows the result of pressing cancel> <--result
2. Use the LCD <result in step 1> to select your next action <--- next
action, abstracted to accommodate criteria
2.1 If the LCD <result in step 1> is blah, then blah blah.
<--criteria + action
2.2 If the LCD <result in step 1> is feh, then fwuh feh . <--
criteria + action
The <angle brackets> indicate replaceable text, not some literal form of
information that belongs in brackets in a well-formed procedure.
I think the solution I offered above has far less potential for confusion
than one that rushes to the next action without considering the
consequences.
Still, I would not consider numbering the "criteria+ action" instructions
unless the users expect it. Is the audience used to seeing procedures
elaborated as Information Maps?
I use alphabetic sub-steps when the list of alternatives or sub-steps gets
up to three or more items. The alpha characters seem much clearer in
denoting a sub-step to the top-level numbered step.
Ned Bedinger
Ed Wordsmith Technical Communications
doc -at- edwordsmith -dot- com http://www.edwordsmith.com
tel: 360-434-7197
