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.
Tom Johnson wondered: <<The company I work for builds grinding machines
that sharpen things like drill bits and end mills. Machine operators
remove the grinding wheel gang by holding the wheel with one hand while
using the other hand to simultaneously press two buttons.>>
Perhaps I'm not understanding this correctly, but this strikes me as a
design guaranteed to damage either the equipment or the operator. A
safe design would lock out the control panel and turn off the machine
whenever the operator has to work on the equipment, and would let the
person use both hands to avoid accidents, no? I've chaired workplace
safety committees in the past, and although my experience with
mechanical stuff is relatively limited, it does strongly suggest that
the operator should be focusing on the task at hand, not on the control
panel.
<<The buttons would correspond to 4 and 6 on a telephone pad. These two
buttons have the same label, "REL HSK" (Release HSK). So far, so good.
Operators can also release a different component by pressing a single
button, "REL COOL" in position 1.>>
Again, an interface design problem: if releasing one component requires
two buttons, a consistent interface would require two buttons for all
release actions. One way to accomplish this would be to use one button
labeled "release" combined with a second button that specifies what
should be released. This lets you add an important safety feature: when
you press "release", the machine shuts down, sending a clear visual
message to the operator (the wheel is no longer rotating) that it's
safe to touch the machine.
I know that you probably can't make interface changes, but if I've
understood the process correctly, it would be unethical not to raise
the objection that the interface may endanger the operator or the
operator's income (if they're held responsible for damaging the
equipment).
<<The control engineers currently label the button in position 3 as
"NOT USED". Here's their logic. They want to make removing the wheel
gang intentional. If someone releases the wheel gang without holding
onto it, they could ruin one or more grinding wheels costing several
hundred dollars each. They don't want to do that. dropping the coolant
manifold won't hurt anything, probably. So, they want to condition the
operators to push two buttons ONLY when they are removing the grinding
wheel and to push a single button to remove the manifold. To reinforce
proper technique, the "NOT USED" button disables the "REL COOL"
button.>>
Which means that the button really is used, and the label is a,ehm>
clearly misleading. In fact, can you imagine trying to explain to
someone that the reason they can't release the coolant manifold is that
they pressed the NOT USED button? Really dumb.
<<Completely removing the button isn't an option.>>
<rant> Actually, yes it is. Engineers like to say this, but it's
rubbish. (cf Alan Cooper's delightful _The Inmates are Running the
Asylum_) I've seen countless designs with space left open in a keypad
or interface to allow buttons to be selectively added. In fact, the
keyboard I'm typing this message on has a lovely little plastic cutout
below the space bar where the more expensive model would have a
trackpad. Okay, perhaps they're buying a standard component that
automatically has all the buttons in place. Objection withdrawn.
</rant>
<<Leaving the label blank could be. Does anyone have any suggestions
for a concise label that would work in this situation? Two short words
(six letters each) is about the maximum that we can fit on a button and
still make it readable.>>
The question is what the button actually does. If it only disables the
cooling manifold, then perhaps "DIS COOL"? Your suggestion of "LOCK
COOL" would be another good choice. But if the button serves multiple
functions, then you've got a problem: you'll have to label it "Control"
or "Function" or something similar that indicates that the function
varies depending on what other key is pressed.
On a somewhat unrelated issue, I note that you presented all your
button names as all-caps. Using a mix of upper and lower case would
seem to allow you to provide longer and more legible labels in the same
space. There may be a standard of some sort that requires the use of
all-caps, but if not, it may be worth trying more standard
capitalization (such as that on most computer keyboards).
WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT - EDIT AND REVIEW, REDEFINED
Accelerate the document lifecycle with full online discussions and unique feedback-management capabilities. Unlimited, efficient reviews for Word
and FrameMaker authors. Live, online demo: http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Doc-To-Help 7.5 Professional: New version with new features, improved performance and reliability, plus much more! Download your free trial today at www.componentone.com/techwrlfeb.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
