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.
Re: Taking advantage of "reflexive" responses in users
Subject:Re: Taking advantage of "reflexive" responses in users From:"Joyce Fetterman" <joycef -at- gtsoftware -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <TECHWR-L -at- LISTS -dot- RAYCOMM -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:34:27 -0400
For the most part, I agree with Annamaria, but...
I immediately thought of a "fun" way to use this feature. Lots of readers
will skip introductory material, assuming that they don't need it. I could
see displaying a similar panel that says "Want to skip the intro?" or
something similar. Then take them to a page that briefly states what they'll
miss if they don't read the intro -- maybe some important terms are
introduced, or a process explained... And then give them the option to
*really* skip the intro, or go back and read it.
I wouldn't use this trick often, for the very reasons Annamaria points out,
but I think it *might* be effective in certain well-chosen situations.
Joyce
Annamaria Profit wrote:
Using this technique is hazardous. Remember WHY you clicked the window
closed? You were trying to get rid of it! Giving a user exactly what they
DON'T want is going to create significant hostility. Even if you're trying
to reinforce a point, the user is saying "so what, I don't want to hear
this." Do you really want to take them to the screen they just refused?
The technique ignores the user's ability to choose.
"Hart, Geoff" wrote:
>
> So the techwr-l tie-in: A small voice is telling me we could use this kind
> of predictable response in technical communication, but I'm drawing a
blank
> right now. Suggestions anyone?