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:Procedures - Must we use numbered steps? From:Geoff Hart <ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca> To:TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>, Steven Brown <stevenabrown -at- yahoo -dot- com> Date:Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:09:25 -0400
Steven Brown wondered: <<We spend a great deal of time formatting
numbered procedures and the numbered substeps that are often embedded
within them. (How many times have we struggled with Word's
autonumbering?)>>
fwiw, you should never use autonumbering. It's been broken since ca.
1995, and Microsoft shows no sign of planning to fix it. The standard
solution is to use autotext (i.e., the autocorrect function) with
sequence fields. Have a look at Dave Knopf's explanation:
http://www.knopf.com/tips/autonumber.html
<<It's become an accepted practice that when you write a procedure, you
use numbers to show the sequence of steps.>>
Yup. It's not because, as some might think, the numbers are necessary
to explain the sequence; we all pretty much know that we start at the
top and move downwards one line at a time. Rather, it's because the
numbers provide a hook that lets us remember were we were when we took
our eyes off the page (or Help window) to look at the keyboard or the
software interface or hardware. Numbers make this easy; in contrast,
when 75% of the instructions begin with the words "Open the X menu",
all those lines look the same, and it becomes much easier to skip a
step or repeat several steps. Numbers reduce that risk
<<I wonder, is it really necessary to use numbered steps at all?>>
Not for simple procedures, or (arguably) for procedures in which each
line begins with a different series of words. Tables that put the
summary instruction in the left column and the details in the right
column can use lots of white space to separate the items in the left
column, and that also helps. But I'd propose that numbering steps has
become the standard because the approach is so familiar to readers and
so efficient that there aren't any really good alternatives. Find one
that's as efficient, and let us know!
<<Gordon Meyer's Usable Help blog
(http://www.g2meyer.com/usablehelp/index.html) recently discussed what
techncial writers might learn from recipe writers. While he doesn't
raise the issue of numbered steps, it struck me that recipes rarely use
numbered steps at all, yet somehow cookbook readers are able to follow
a fairly complex sequence of tasks.>>
Some cookbooks do indeed use numbered steps. Personally, I find them
much easier to use. YMMV, of course. The ones that don't tend to fall
into one of two main camps: The first camp simply creates one long
paragraph containing a series of steps. I suspect this is done from
tradition, not because anyone prefers it.
The second camp is considerably more sophisticated, and does useful
things like listing one or more ingredients followed by brief
instructions on what to do with them. Once you've done that, the
ingredients are no longer sitting there on the work table (they're in
the pot or pan or oven or whatever), so you physically cannot repeat
the step: the ingredients are gone. So if you lose your place, you
simply look for the last ingredients you used, and pick up where you
left off.
<<So I ask, have you ever considered writing procedures without
numbers?>>
Where I've used this most successfully was in a series of quickstart
guides that I produced. Because the format was a table with text in the
left column and graphics in the right, it was easy to read sequentially
through the steps, and the significantly different graphics served the
same role as numbers: they provided a clear visual point of return in
the text. This works because we humans are intensely visual animals,
and images attract our attention more strongly than words. We don't
take advantage of this strength often enough imho.
A similar approach would work well with comic-strip-styled
instructions: so long as the sequence (left to right for the typical
Dilbert-style strip) is clear, and the graphics are distinct, no
numbers should be required. Of course, any example of what Scott McLoud
calls "serial animation" would work this way; think of how an onscreen
installation wizard works and you'll get the idea. Because only one
step appears on the screen at a time, and you move to the next step by
clicking the "Next" button, you never forget where you are.
WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word features support for every major Help
format plus PDF, HTML and more. Flexible, precise, and efficient content
delivery. Try it today!. http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Doc-To-Help includes a one-click RoboHelp project converter. It's that easy. Watch the demo at http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
