Re. manual visual styles

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

     Stuart Burnfield asks about "text dense" manuals vs. those with open
     looks, lots of graphics and active white space. I can't comment on
     U.K. vs. U.S. conventions, having never seen a U.K. manual (to my
     knowledge), but the white space/graphics issue isn't simply a matter
     of regional differences in opinion.

     From my readings, there's extensive evidence that active white space,
     supplemented by useful (rather than decorative) contextual graphics is
     much more efficient for readers. Wall-to-wall text isn't done for the
     sake of the reader, but rather for traditional reasons: fewer pages,
     thus lower cost; fewer graphics, thus no need to hire an illustrator;
     tradition, thus no need to think about what you're doing. I love the
     Penguin classics for their content, but they're a shining example of
     complete incomprehension re. typography and design... miniscule text,
     a crappy font, etc. etc. etc. Open, airy, illustrated manuals are much
     less intimidating, thus more likely to be read. If you have the
     option, move your U.K. manuals over to the American style.

     Caveat: This recommendation follows from the "you wouldn't read a
     phone book cover to cover would you?" school of visual design. (Great
     dramatis personae, lousy plot.) In defence of the opposite approach,
     I'd note that I _do_ read dictionaries, albeit not cover to cover, and
     find them useful aids. (Great plot, but no characterisation to speak
     of and the authors could learn a thing or two about connective words.)
     On the other other hand, most dictionaries do have the occasional
     illustration...

     --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.