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.
Subject:Re: Web site quality (was: Loopy) From:"David O'Brien" <OBrien_David_P -at- cat -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:32:18 +1000
El Mié 15 Oct 2003 09:50, Bonnie Granat escribió:
> From: "Jean Hollis Weber" <jean -at- jeanweber -dot- com>
>
> > Bonnie Granat wrote,
> >
> > >The care that a company takes on its Web site tells me a lot about its
> > >overall attitude to quality.
> >
> > Depends what aspect of the Web site you're using to judge the care that's
> > taken on it.
>
> Errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and typos. It's rude, in my
> opinion, to make readers puzzle out what you're trying to say. Just as it
> is in mailing- list posts that are filled with errors.
Having just saved myself the pain of sifting through 80+ spams per day by
installing software whose documentation was written in Portuguese and
translated into sketchy English by the author, I agree with Jean. It was good
enough to get the job done, although obviously not perfect English. Were it
written in King's, Queen's or God's English with no errors but didn't explain
what to do, I would have long ago moved on.
Not everyone speaks perfect English, but at the same time need to use English
mailing lists if they have much hope of finding information or answers to
questions.
>
> I'm now so accustomed to using Web sites that are put together
>
> > by people with English as a second language, that I don't judge a site by
> > the language (grammar, punctuation, spelling) on it. From experience I
> > know that some of the best software is produced by people whose English
> > could be better.
>
> I don't trust a company that publishes a site in English that has many
> language errors and many typos. The company might have a good product, and
> I might choose to use it. But at first blush, I am leery of such a company.
> It makes me wonder about what else they cut corners on.
Surely that depends on the company or the reason for providing a site in
another language? I recently wanted to find some software to enable writing
and reading Hangul on my pda. Found a site, obviously Korean, where the
English version provided all the info I needed, links, instructions, etc., in
less than perfect English. I'm now happily reading and writing Korean (slowly
:-) using DioPen. Had they made no attempt at all to publish their site in
English because they had not perfect resources, then I would still be
looking.
>
> > I _do_ judge a site on its usability -- whether I can find things easily
> > and quickly, whether I can use my preferred browser (Opera) or have to
> > use IE, and several other criteria. If the Web site fails my usability
> > test, then _that_ makes me wonder about the quality of the company's
> > products, especially if they are software products.
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> > If the language really interferes with my understanding, that's a
> > problem, but usually the real problems with the written bits have to do
> > with organisation of the material, or being too technical or not
> > technical enough, or something else conceptual -- I'd much rather have
> > flawed English that tells me what I want to know than perfect English
> > that doesn't.
>
> I would agree, but I am less likely to spend any time on a language-sloppy
> site than one that is of high quality.
I think we all agree here. High quality content, organized, presented and
written well, is easier to use. However, again I agree with Jean; if it has
what I want in 90% English, I'll persevere with it. 90% of 100 is 90, 100% of
50 is 50.
David
--
David O'Brien BA(Hons) Language & Translation
Senior Technical Writer, Software Translation Coordinator
MineStar Support Team
Caterpillar MineStar Solutions - Asia Pacific Division
Brisbane, Queensland
Phone: 617 3329 8122 Fax: 617 3329 8101
david -dot- obrien -at- cat -dot- com
RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for
competitive pricing or view a live demo at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l3
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
