Re: FAQs

[Lisa Wright <lisawright -at- mail -dot- utexas -dot- edu>]

Diane,
Awhile back, I posted a query on "Documentation by FAQs." At the time, 
the answers I got here seemed somewhat dismissive of my concerns (which 
I perhaps didn't explain very well). I was new to an environment where 
almost all web documentation was in an FAQ format. I've spent the last 
18 months working to change that. The reasons? Here are a few:

* They are not purposeful, meaning that they don't address the 
information needs of the user. Is the user trying to complete a task? 
Trying to find reference information and learn more?

* They introduce redundancy. I have eliminated virtual reams of paper 
through restructuring FAQs into topic-based documentation.

* When they are in a single page, they don't allow us to analyze web 
statistics to find out why people are coming to the site and what 
information they are looking for.

* Navigation is troublesome. The general categories you mention 
typically don't work, and they can split related information among 
different categories. For example, we have categories called "General 
Information." That's worse than useless to me if I'm looking for 
something. Also, just the list of questions can be a mile long. If the 
text of the question is the link, the underlining can reduce 
readability. If an FAQ is required (and I list some situations below 
where they may be), then topics should be short and navigation kept 
simple and specific.

I've discovered that the writers who worked on these FAQs weren't bad 
writers. They came into an organization that began writing documentation 
from a developer perspective early in the life of the web (and before 
that, the Internet). Developers were used to FAQs, and that became the 
norm. Also, in an organization where writers are scarce, an FAQ format 
is something that non-writers can find familiar enough to be able to 
write. The writers also were not in a position to change the norm 
because of their placement in the organization. We're making changes now.

I spent a lot of time analyzing how FAQs *could* be effective and I came 
up with a few places where I support their use (despite the "No FAQ" 
sign on my cube!):

* When an existing system is changing.

* For limited types of information, such as payment options.

* Troubleshooting topics, which are a specialized, symptom-based type of 
FAQ.

As a customer, I find FAQs frustrating. As a writer, I make very limited 
use of them. I make sure to explain the transition from FAQs to a more 
purposeful format when I have the opportunity. So far I've gotten a very 
positive response, and the change in information structure is 
dramatically improving the performance of our web site.

Lisa

Diane Boos wrote: