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.
I thought I attended a usability session that showed that users
(perversely!) gloss over bold text and boxes... Having warning text in flow
with the text worked better. However, I cannot source this and my memory is
not always reliable. If anyone else has information on usability and
warnings, I would be interested!
One of the frustrations I had when I was writing hardware documentation is
that the standards don't agree --- OSHA, MIL, other standards groups, and
general industry practices all differ. It makes it difficult to do a
meaningful warning if "deleting all data" is handled the same as "losing a
limb."
Regards,
Barb
-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+caslon=alltel -dot- net -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+caslon=alltel -dot- net -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On Behalf Of
Shannon Wade
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:03 PM
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: RE: Is there a study on reading warnings, notes?
We are actively moving away from specific safety notices in our manuals. We
are headed the direction of "Here's the list of over-arching concerns. We've
provided you with them at the beginning of the manual. Whether or not you
choose to read them is your decision. Now that we've provided you with them,
let's move on to the actual instructions, shall we?". In the past we have
included "Notes" with pertinent information and the word "Note" in bold. We
are doing away with that convention and including that pertinent text (Do
not stand in a puddle while doing this) within the appropriate paragraph.
Does anyone see large concerns with this?
I am on digest, so feel free to contact me on or off list.
Message: 25
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 16:22:40 -0500
From: "Lippincott, Richard" <RLippincott -at- as-e -dot- com>
Subject: RE: Is there a study on reading warnings, notes?
To: <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Message-ID:
<13F0061C2FF9A54E8A5BFB8CA626EF5908A80739 -at- mahqexc01 -dot- as-e -dot- com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Geoff Hart said:
>We need to design documentation around that
>principle... for example, by building warnings and cautions into the
>steps rather than setting them aside.
In my opinion, the approach has to be two fold: the procedural step has to
tell you the safe way to do it, but an offset admonition has to explain the
consequences. Offset in order to capture attention, offset so that it isn't
missed.
If I recall from yesterday's digest, Geoff gave an example that a procedure
shouldn't just tell a person working with electrical components to avoid
working in a wet area but instead provides the instructions to dry the work
area. I agree, but I'd also add a big fat can't-miss-it admonition about the
electric shock danger from wet surfaces.
I can think right off the top of my head of a couple of aviation examples
where the correct procedure didn't also include a warning of the
consequences, and the result were literally a disaster.
Probably the most famous is the American Airlines Flight 191 crash in
Chicago, May 25, 1979. The DC-10 maintenance manuals clearly explained the
correct procedure for engine removal (it involved buying some expensive
equipment from McDonnell-Douglas), but apparently never explained why it was
a very very bad idea to avoid the fairly common practice of using a forklift
(cheaper and faster, and routine in the aviation industry).
American Airlines chose to use the forklift. The result was a crash that
killed 273 people.
It's got to be a two-pronged approach. The steps should explain the right
way to do the procedure, the safety admonition should explain what can go
wrong if you don't.
Rick Lippincott
Technical Writer
AS&E*
American Science & Engineering
829 Middlesex Turnpike
Billerica, MA 01821-3907
978-262-8807 (direct)
978-495-2335 (mobile)
978-262-8702 (fax)
This message is intended only for the addressee and may contain information
that is confidential or privileged. Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you should not
read,
copy , disclose or otherwise use this message, except for the purposes of
delivery to the addressee. If you have received this e-mail in error please
delete it and advise AS&E immediately.
ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 2009 is your all-in-one authoring and publishing
solution. Author in Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word or
HTML and publish to the Web, Help systems or printed manuals. http://www.doctohelp.com
Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control! http://www.helpandmanual.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as caslon -at- alltel -dot- net -dot-
ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 2009 is your all-in-one authoring and publishing
solution. Author in Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word or
HTML and publish to the Web, Help systems or printed manuals. http://www.doctohelp.com
Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control! http://www.helpandmanual.com/
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-
