Re. references vs. tutorials

[Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

     Peggy Thomson asks <paraphrase> if the traditional distinction between
     tutorials and reference manuals remains valid, or is just a
     traditional relic.

     Peggy, I make the following very specific distinction between a
     tutorial and a reference:
     1. Tutorial: task based. (Ex: how do I set up a master page in my DTP
     program).
     2. Reference: command/menu based. (Ex: OK, now that I know how to set
     up the master page, what are the details of each command.)

     A tutorial should teach users the metaphor your software uses, and
     create an overall schema of how the various components of the software
     function; by the time you've gone through the tutorial, you know what
     approach you take to problem solving, but probably don't know the
     details. A reference section assumes you know how to solve a problem,
     and now want to know the details. Unless you can create a reference
     manual that provides a useful schema as described above, and I can't
     think of how you could do that, you pretty much require a separate
     tutorial.

     Another vital point: Picture the reaction of a new user who opens the
     box, having never used that type of software, and finds only a single
     thick volume labeled reference, with no "tutorial" listed in the table
     of contents. I know what my reaction would be! ("Hello, Microsoft?
     What's your competitive upgrade offer on...") It's conceivable you
     could do away with the tutorial, though I don't know how, but how do
     you do away with that initial "how do I work with this software"
     response?

     --Geoff Hart    @8^{)}
     geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

     Disclaimer: If I didn't commit it in print in one of
     our reports, it don't represent FERIC's opinion.