Re: TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGY

Subject: Re: TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGY
From: Michael Lewis <lewism -at- BRANDLE -dot- COM -dot- AU>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:47:05 +1100

Damien Braniff wrote:

> I guess what I'm saying is that content is paramount, followed by layout
> etc. Good layout etc + poor content = rubbishy, unusable manual; good
> content + poor layout etc = poor manual, but tolerable if there is nothing
> else; good content + good layout etc = good manual.

Depends on what you mean by "tolerable". A computer company I know of
once did an analysis of calls to its support hotline. I don't recall the
precise numbers, but something like 90% of calls were attributable to
defects in the documentation. In 75% of cases, the required information
was in the manual but the user couldn't find it; in the other cases the
user couldn't work out how to appply it to the problem at hand, or did
so incorrectly. That suggests to me that information structure,
structural signals in the layout (eg, clear headings and relationships
between headed sections), and other contextual markers aren't
functionally separable. Sooner or later, people stop using the manual if
the return on invested effort is too low. So: good content +
not-quite-good layout etc may be acceptable; good content + really awful
layout means the good content is inaccessible. Lousy quality in
non-textual aspects mean that the quality of text is irrelevant: it
doesn't get read.
--
Michael Lewis
Brandle Pty Limited, Sydney, Australia
PO Box 1249, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012
Suite 8, The Watertower, 1 Marian St, Redfern 2016
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~lewism
Tel +61-2-9310-2224 ... Fax +61-2-9310-5056




Previous by Author: Re: Favourite font for long passages?
Next by Author: Re: Font choices
Previous by Thread: Re: Tools and Technology
Next by Thread: Re: TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGY


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads