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.
After a full reading, it's obvious that the results are mixed.
But I don't see that the study was applicable anyway. Our interest, as techwriters, is to impart info in the text that is being read, and to get the reader to successfully complete the task for which they are reading the instructions.
The study had the reading content completely separated from, and irrelevant to, the test task (mounting the candle in the first iteration of the study, or coming up with the common word from a trio in the second iteration).
Actually, as I read the study, I kept wondering when they'd observe whether participants read more (faster) or less during the reading task, with the poor and the good typography, respectively. Of course, for that they would have needed either an order of magnitude more participants, or else a methodology that would allow them to compare reading speed and comprehension by same participants on successive trials... as well as a way of normalizing the content across trials for each participant - is it similar in terms of level, interest, etc., without being too similar and thus boring in the second trial.... but that's a different study.
Anyway, as I say, what I think would have been the important thing to test, to make it relevant to us, is if the reading had contained the material that was to be learned. THAT is the important learning or apprehension that must take place when we provide instructions. We don't normally get users to read a big chunk, and then present them a totally unrelated challenge.
There might be some relevance when we present pre-amble or context material ahead of instructions... but how often is the preliminary or introductory material in our Help or Guide going to take 20 minutes to read, plus an interruption at the 15-to-17-minute mark, before the actual task is presented?
If anything, the paper was weakest when the challenge to the testees was language-related as opposed to a silent open challenge to mount a candle... a physical-manipulation and spatial-awareness challenge. And last I looked, our challenges to our readers are reading-comprehension-based, first and foremost.
-----Original Message-----
From: Janoff, Steven
Sent: October-24-13 3:59 PM
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com; Lauren
Subject: RE: Using tables for content
It shows that good Information Design/Architecture, including good graphic design principles, can assist learning (at least I think that's what it shows based on a quick read).
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer without copying
or disclosing it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
New! Doc-to-Help 2013 features the industry's first HTML5 editor for authoring.
