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: Studies relating to documentation density and getting the user to read the manuals
Subject:RE: Studies relating to documentation density and getting the user to read the manuals From:"Dan Goldstein" <DGoldstein -at- riverainmedical -dot- com> To:<techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:30:56 -0500
Dear Doc Doc,
Does the client already know that the users "skim, skip steps, and get
into a mess"? I think that's the best support for your position.
Corollary 1: Even if you improve the documentation by cutting out the
excess, there's no guarantee that the users will read it.
Corollary 2: Even if the users are incorrigible, it's worth it to
improve the documentation.
Happy Tuesday,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Documentation Doctor
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:59 AM
> To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> Subject: Studies relating to documentation density and
> getting the user to read the manuals
>
> I'm hoping I can tap your collective wisdom.
>
> A client has the common problem that users don't read the
> installation manuals.
>
> Historically, the response has been to beef up the
> installation manuals with big warning boxes highlighting the
> importance of particular steps; so much so that the warnings
> duplicate about 30% of the procedure. In addition, to make
> the manuals more friendly, each and every dialogue box and
> message is documented and illustrated. Even so, users still
> tend to skim, skip steps and get into a mess.
>
> My contention is that users are more likely to read
> documentation that is terse and does not contain redundant
> information, and that a single "Follow the steps or suffer
> the consequences" warning will suffice.
>
> So, what I'd be grateful for would be links to any studies
> that I could cite in order to support (or invalidate!) my position.
>
This message contains confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing, copying, electronic storing or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us, by replying to the sender, and delete the original message immediately thereafter. Thank you.
ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 2009 is your all-in-one authoring and publishing
solution. Author in Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word or
HTML and publish to the Web, Help systems or printed manuals. http://www.doctohelp.com
Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control! http://www.helpandmanual.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-