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.
Subject:Re: Magical thinking? From:"Jessica N. Lange" <jlange -at- OHIOEE -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 16 Jan 1998 07:40:25 -0500
Bruce Byfield wrote:
>I think you're right: the level of detail has to fit the audience.
>
>Which reminds me: I've had one or two people write me to say that they
think that non-technical people just want procedures. However, I note
that even non-technical people appreciate knowing in a general way why
they are doing something. They just don't want to know a lot of details.
I was a trainer of a complex software product before I moved to tech
writing. Some students--all non-technical--wanted just the procedures: "just
tell me what to do"---a fool-proof recipe to always follow.
I always tried to teach concepts and understanding of the whole product:
*why* things happen the way they do; think like the computer! I tried to
explain that I couldn't give them a recipe that would suit all the
situations they would come up against in their careers as operators of this
product. To do their jobs, they *had* to understand the product, not just
memorize a series of steps. Also, the work they were doing would change, now
that they had this nifty new tool. In the future, they would need to figure
out how to use the tool to do this new work; that means they will need the
details.
My experience as a trainer has affected how I write: I provide the
procedures, the recipe, but I always include the concepts and logic, the
details. Many of our users will never look at this stuff: they are not
interested in doing any but the minimum work possible and going home to real
life. But some of our users make the system "sing"---they do things with it
that we didn't think were possible.
I've followed this thread with interest: trying to accomodate the
not-very-interested user (just the steps, please) and the wizard (let's see
what happens if I do this!), while keeping manual sizes down is hard. But I
don't think I can ignore either user!
Another point: our equipment (hardware as well as the software program) is
expensive. To justify the cost, it must be productive, which means the
operators must be productive. Those who want only to follow a recipe--the
grimoire--aren't as productive as the ones who understand the system and can
do things efficiently and flexibly. When a salesrep brings in a new type of
work, the former operator says "it can't be done" while the latter learns
how to do it.
My $.02 worth.
Jessica N. Lange
Technical Communicator
Ohio Electronic Engravers, Inc. mailto:jlange -at- ohioee -dot- com
