Magical thinking?

[geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA]

 Bruce Byfield <<... can't help wondering: --how widespread
 is magical thinking? To what extent should it be taken
 into account when writing manuals? Should it be opposed, as
 I'm inclined to do?>>

 It's not an either/or situation, and that's what makes it
 complex. To pick up on the example of driving a car, you
 don't need to know why turning the key provides power to
 turn the wheels, but you do need to understand that you
 can't drive until you've turned on the car. See the
 difference between the two? In the first case, you're
 providing technical information that's only useful to a
 limited number of users; in the second, you create a schema
 that lets every user make necessary and logical predictions
 about how things work (e.g., "The car isn't moving. Hmmm..
 have I turned it on?").

 The problem now becomes how to recognize what is "helpful
 schema" and what is "tech-nerd detail". Sometimes you need
 only do a little thinking about it (as in my simplistic
 example with the car), but sometimes the only way you're
 going to know is to talk to the real users. If you
 understand how they approach the problem, you can tease out
 an idea of what's schema and what's overwhelming detail.
 True minimalist docs recognize that schema is important,
 and raw detail isn't; false minimalism confuses the two
 functions and eliminates both.

 --Geoff Hart     @8^{)}     geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
 Disclaimer: Speaking for myself, not FERIC.