Lots to digest here:
Technical Writer <tekwrytr at hotmail.com> wrote:
Technical writing, specifically end-user documentation of software
applications, is perceived by the majority of producers as "less than useful"
and, in general, a waste of money, time, and effort.
This is observable.
Similarly, the TW's view that they are "adding value" to a product may be
just as impoverished.
I certainly hope not. If it is, TW's are forgetting some key ingredients of
good writing: relevance, usability, and accessibility. (By accessibility in
this instance I don't mean as relating to accomodating certain challenges the
user may have; I mean the ability of the user to actually FIND the information
they seek, assuming that the information is there.
Documentation is not used by the end-user because it is awkward, poorly
organized, and in many cases, indecipherable for a user seeking
task-accomplishment assistance.
People who aren't avid readers in general don't turn to books for answers,
but an increasing number of users do try to find answers online, either via
the F1 key or an internet access point. The whole reason I got into TW in the
first place is that I was extremely frustrated as a user of the books for the
programs necessary for my job at the time. I was marking up the books with
"no, it really works like x" and catching typos and grammar errors. Now that
I've spent over a decade in TW, I can honestly say that a lot of the reason
for the user's frustration is probably rooted in the excruciatingly short
timelines required of most TWs, as well as the all-too-common presumption by
the TW and/or their management that an review by a qualified editor is a
"luxury." There are many contributing factors.
It is in the area of knowledge transfer that TW comes up short. Of all the
software documentation available on October 18, 2007, how many pieces are
considered easy-to-use by users?
Document usability and readability enable or incumber knowledge transfer at
least as much as relevance and organization of the content do. However, of the
scores of TWs that I've worked with over the years, several with at least 25
years in the field, many are completely unfamiliar with basic concepts of how
to make clear, concise information that is easy to find and easy to read and
actually relevant to the user. It's been my experience that only about 1/4 of
the TWs I've met "get" those concepts. Most of them are really good at
understanding their subject matter and getting the point across to the reader,
but many get too many tangiential factors involved or fail to understand how
the user approaches the product and, therefore, fail to organize the
information in a way that the user needs it presented, much less index it with
terms the user would seek. There are a few companies that are customer-focused
enough to get the TW's efforts into some doc
usability scenarios, but these companies seem more the exception than the
rule...at least in telecom.
Finally, the reason that user interfaces in software applications require
extensive documentation is a failure in the design and programming stage, not
in the documentation stage. If the interface were competently designed, it
should be "intuitive" to use, and require only minimalist documentation.
In telecom, even the most intuitive user interfaces require documentation
to explain the system ramifications and configuration options available with
various combinations of settings. Some of it could be converted to field-level
on screen "what's this" roll-over text, but a lot of it requires
interrelational understanding as applied to various scenarios and goals. No
screen, regardless of how intuitively it is designed, can convey that
information...to the best of my understanding or estimation.
If there is a future for TW, it lies in the area of facilitating knowledge
transfer, rather than an obsession with style, form, and consistency.
Yes, the future of TW does rest *partly* in facilitating knowledge
transfer. It also includes knowledge management and creating and maintaining a
bridge between what the customer does with the products and what the company
provides as products for the customer.
My 2?
Rene Stephenson
