Re: Conditional statements in instructions

["DI MEO LOWMAN, LINDA" <lm3142 -at- MOMAIL -dot- SBC -dot- COM>]

I agree with Mary D. and Barb. I use a Warning style within stepped
procedures which is in bold type so that users notice it. These warnings
are used sparingly. I have a note style also which calls attention to
less serious information that the users need to know.


Linda DiMeo Lowman
mailto:lm3142 -at- momail -dot- sbc -dot- com
(office)
or
mailto:martfull -at- stlnet -dot- com
(home)



> ----------
> From:         Barb Philbrick[SMTP:caslonsvcs -at- IBM -dot- NET]
> Reply To:     Barb Philbrick
> Sent:         Wednesday, May 27, 1998 1:18 PM
> To:   TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject:      Re: Conditional statements in instructions
>
> >        1 - In the case you cite, my fear is that when people see
> those
> >cautionary statements, they skip over the whole step. With a caution
> on
> >*everything* including candleholders, who bothers to read them?
> I think if cautionary statements are used judiciously, they would draw
> attention. You're right -- you can't warn about everything. You've got
> to know your audience. As one of my friends once said (specific to her
> product line), "My audience is mechanics. They know that leaving the
> engine on while working on a car is dangerous, so I don't need to tell
> them that. What they need to know about are dangers they might not
> think of, or that are introduced by my company's product."
>
> My problem with notes or cautions in a procedure is that if they're
> before the step, people might not read them, and if they're after the
> step, it's probably too late.
>
> >        I'm not (or at least I hope I'm not) being merely pigheaded =
> about
> >consistent structure in procedure steps. I'm going on the assumption
> =
> that,
> >in a manual, you want the reader to get the rhythm/feel of the info
> you
> >present, which is easier if you make the info subliminally
> self-evident.
> It's hard to say if you're being pigheaded or logical -- I generally
> agree with your argument for persenting information consistently.
> Unfortunately, I think this is an area that we (technical writers)
> don't have good data on. We could talk all day about which we *prefer*
> -- but which way really keeps our users out of trouble? Are there any
> other people running usability tests that have found one type of
> procedure to be better than another?
>
> Regards,
>
> Barb
>
>
> Barbara Philbrick, Caslon Services Inc.
> Technical Writing. caslonsvcs -at- ibm -dot- net
> Cleveland, OH
>
> &^~~~
> Send commands to listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g., SIGNOFF
> TECHWR-L)
> Find TECHWR-L-related books at
> http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/books.htm
>
>