Re: Magical Thinking and Grimoires

[Kelly Anderson <kellya -at- VIEWSOFT -dot- COM>]

At 09:12 PM 1/13/98 -0500, you wrote:
>However, I maintain that some background understanding makes people more
>capable, as well as more interested in their jobs. Obviously, the amount
>of background has to be adjusted for the audience, but I think the
>result is well-worth the tradeoff of slightly less productivity each
>day.

The seminal work "The Design of Everyday Things" (ISBN: 0385267746) teaches
that the basic requirement for "usability" is for the designer and the user
to think about the problem in the same way. Magical Thinking is the exact
opposite of this widely accepted view of "usability".

As I write technical documentation, I always try to get my user to think
about the problem in the same way as the designer. While this may involve a
little more up front time in learning to use the product, if the correct
"mental model" is achieved in the mind of the user, it is likely to be
worth the initial pain.

Unfortunately, in software, programs are often written in such a way that
the correct mental model is obfuscated. The programmer implemented it as an
"A", but tries to show it to the user as a "B" (which it really isn't). We
as technical writers ought to show the user that it really is an "A", and
that if they think of it as an "A" they will understand that it really
isn't magic.

Just my opinions.

-Kelly
"I'm not really a technical writer, I just play one at work."