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: Arguments for using illustrations instead of 3d animations
Subject:RE: Arguments for using illustrations instead of 3d animations From:"Lippincott, Richard" <RLippincott -at- as-e -dot- com> To:Martin Jonasson <martinjonassonjobbet -at- gmail -dot- com>, "techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Tue, 20 Aug 2013 21:50:11 +0000
Have you discussed with the client how much it will cost to do this as animation vs. text?
I'm guessing that procedures you could write out in minutes may take hours to do as an animation. I've done some work with animation on component assembly/disassembly, and it's not a fast process. I would not be surprised if it works out to be similar to the time allotment for video (about an hour of production time for each minute of video).
Your client may want to be reminded that "a picture is worth a thousand words" has another meaning when it comes to billing. Words are cheaper and faster, and sometimes just as clear.
--Rick Lippincott
-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+rlippincott=as-e -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com [mailto:techwr-l-bounces+rlippincott=as-e -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On Behalf Of Martin Jonasson
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 5:01 AM
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: Arguments for using illustrations instead of 3d animations
A client is interested in replacing as much of the service information as possible with 3d-animated instructions. However, I think this generally is a bad idea.
My arguments are basically:
* 3D generated from CAD is harder to interepret than a illustration. The 3D contains a lot of noise (surfaces, colors etc) which forces the user to try to find out what is the important part of the image.
* Animations creates time sequence which is hard to go back and forth. If you hit play, watch the animation and then want to go back to one step it's harder to find the right frames than to just skim through a illustration/list.
The client uses the "a picture is worth a thousand words" arguments (generally quite true, but try to show "a picture is worth a thousand words" using a picture). However when he now wants to replace as much of the text and manual with animatiosn instead I need help with more arguments I'm afraid.
Have anyone else worked with a company with the same aim (replacing manual with 3d animation)? How did that go?
I would love to hear your take on this as well.
Also I would highly appriciate any links/references investigating 3D/animation vs illustrations/text from a human factors perspective. I know I read a paper about this a year or so ago, anyone got that?
Best regards
Martin
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
New! Doc-to-Help 2013 features the industry's first HTML5 editor for authoring.
