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.
Subject:Re: Magical Thinking and Grimoires From:Steve Fouts <stefou -at- ESKIMO -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:51:10 -0800
Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- AXIONET -dot- COM> said:
>The result is some of the most intriguing writing I've done. However, as
>I interview, I notice that even some advanced users frequently resort to
>what I call "magical thinking." That is, they know that typing a certain
>command with certain parameters will get certain results, but they don't
>understand the details of what thye're doing.
This is just a simple truth of human nature. Usability studies have
shown this over and over again. The mental process required to
understand how it works is simply not worth it to the task at
hand. Rule number one: People are lazy. The path of least resistance
is the most heavily followed path.
>Some people (not just at my present site, but at past ones, too), seem
>to think that the manuals should be grimoires, too.
And if that is what is useful to them, then that is what you should
provide.
>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.
I disagree. Why waste your time writing a book that talks about the
chemical and physical underpinnings of the internal combustion engine
when the user's task is to drive to the store and get milk? Why bother
with trying to explain the difference between the coefficient of
static friction and the coefficient of sliding friction when what they
need to know is that slamming on the brakes is not the best way to
stop?
>--how widespread is magical thinking? To what extent should it be taken
>into account when writing manuals? Should it be opposed, as I'm inclined
>to do?
It's every where. Always take your audience into consideration when
you are writing. Always. Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes
your time and annoys the pig.
>--what do people think about the pros and cons of grimoires, as opposed
>to contextual manuals?
Provide your users with whatever they need and will use to do their job.
No more, no less. By all means write for the full range of your audience
if it is cost effective to do so. Most times it is not.
_______________ _____
/ ___ __/__\ \ / / _\ Steve Fouts stefou -at- eskimo -dot- com
/___ \| | ___\ | / __\ I am the Lorax and I speak for
/ / \ | \ / \ the trees.
/_______/__|_______\_/________\ But not for SAFECO.