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.
>Ben, Simon, Tim, Leonard, Doug and the two Mikes, all have worked the
>subject of Metatext around statement-oriented presentations. Where should
>the Socratic method appear in this discussion? Are rhetoric questions
>metatext? Whether they are or not, are they useful?
>* What are the benefits of using questions as the main preamble mechanism?
This raises again the argument of training versus task assistance. Questions
in FAQs are signposts intended to couple the user's need to know to a
possible answer, not to couple a user's task assistance to possible paths of
behavior.
Take an example: In an FAQ, you might find "What happens if I diddle my
doddle?" This sounds friendly, simple, and easy to read and understand. And
it probably is. What it isn't is structured. It's a beguiling way to present
information because it mimics human interaction. It mimics a human mentor.
However, If the user has (as is often the case) three or more entire
documents in an FAQ, and perhaps a dozen or more major areas scattered
within them, where does he go to find specific help under a keyword "Diddle"
or "Doddle"? He scans the TOC, looking for something approximating his
needs, then settles on something that seems close. But if nobody else has
ever diddled a doddle, only doodled on a doddle, his diddle question won't
be in the FAQ. On the plus side, having found and read a diddle-the-doddle
entry in an FAQ, he'll probably remember it, which is a form of training.
But few seriously advocate using FAQs as models of task assistance
documentation, because the FAQ is wild and wooly, ad-hoc, put together out
of bits and pieces, not structured as a series of tasks that the user can
rationally be expected to perform. And in task assistance, the highest good
is accessibility...finding help fast. FAQs are for tribal wisdom. Task
assistance, like help files and manuals, are for immediate task support.
Further, the rhetorical or Socratic question occurs in training precisely
because it stimulates thinking, which is, of course, a fairly standard
forerunner of learning. However, we at Simply Written don't think that task
assistance documentation is or should be geared toward instruction or
training. Those are separate jobs from task assistance. Task assistance
doesn't necessarily involve thought. In fact, it can be mere mechanical step
performance. But that's okay in this instance. It's not okay when the user
is trying to learn something.
For us (and the Clustar Method reflects this), the major priorities of task
assistance are:
* Totally task-based structure (no system descriptions unless unavoidable)
* Rapid accessibility (finding what you need as quickly as possible)
* Consistency (finding everything in predictable places, time after time)
* Rapid use (no filler, windup, or speed bumps, only simple, clear steps and
enough explanation to fill in gaps)
For us, rhetorical questions would slow down accessibility and use. When the
user has to think, the user slows down. Ideally, we believe that the user
shouldn't have to think beyond the simplest if-then level when doing tasks
in a well-designed environment.
Greetings from Topside, Indiana, USA, the home of Bobby Knight.
Tim Altom
Adobe Certified Expert, Acrobat
Simply Written, Inc.
The FrameMaker support people
Creators of the Clustar Method for task-based documentation
317.899.5882 http://www.simplywritten.com
