Re: Challenges facing tech writers

[Kris Olberg <kjolberg -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM>]

Elna Tymes replied:


>Most of them, frankly.  Unfortunately, there exists too few mechanisms for
>evaluating content.  Submitting your manual to an STC competition, while
>important for PR purposes (since most engineering managers and users
haven't the
>vaguest notion what STC is or does, but it looks good), doesn't establish
your
>content as "good" except by whatever standards the local STC evaluation
team is
>using this year.  One mechanism that DOES work is sale of third-party
books,
>except that this, too, is subject to bias - those introduced by the
publishing
>company's willingness to promote the book.


Exactly my point. We, the "community," need to develop criteria for
determining whether content is good or bad. We can't rely on others to do
this for us.

>Remember that people who BUY software are not necessarily the same ones who
USE
>it.  In a large corporate environment, there may be a well-ordered process
of
>recommendations from actual users that results in a purchase decision, but
in
>most smaller business environments, those who purchase the software
generally
>have to make buy/don't buy decisions in a hurry, and that's where
attractive
>packaging plays an important part.


I'm not saying that packaging isn't important. But that task should be done
by some other group like marketing. In any case, attractive packaging might
get you the first sell, but by itself it doesn't cause repeat business or
good reviews. Good product and good documentation will get you that.

>The real problem is that the engineering community has trained the users to
>expect one-size-fits-all users' guides, and hasn't focused on just how
people
>learn a new tool.  Some people need a hand-holding document; some people
want an
>ad hoc approach, preferably online; some people actually need the time and
>attention of a stand-up course instructor.  And there are other variations.
>What usability studies have been done have largely focused on how people
use
>software, not the supporting documentation.  And most of us who have been
doing
>tech writing for a long time have lots of anecdotal evidence in support of
this
>point or that, but no systematic research.


Once again, exactly my point. We, the "community" need to obtain the funding
and do the research ourselves. Few other professions rely on others to do
the research for their profession.

>I agree with the first two points, but have a problem with the third,
largely
>because I doubt there is such a thing as a "community" of technical
writers,
>just as there is no "community" of programmers or engineers. Most of the
time, I
>can affect what I touch and the people who work for me can affect what they
>touch, but beyond providing good examples, and moving from client to client
>sewing the seeds of new perspectives, there isn't much individuals or small
>groups can do.  Until we get groups of real users saying "Hey, this is
good!"
>we're going to be subject to the criticisms of engineering groups who have
>mistaken notions about what users want, and to the criticisms from
publicists
>who ardently - but sometimes wrongly - believe that they're looking out for
the
>interests of the 'community' of great unwashed users.
>
>Until we can point to statistically defensible studies involving the
usability
>of documentation and other learning tools, we're simply going to be talking
>about our own, admittedly biased, experiences.


Very true. But as I've said, it's up to us to do the studies. We DO have a
community--it's not necessarily cohesive, but it exists in the form of these
listservs, newsgroups, web sites, STC chapters (and nat'l org), user's
groups, etc. I look to the STC to take the lead on these issues and begin
the charge. Not sure if this will happen since STC leaders appear to be
ill-focused with few of them having the vision (or time away from their
precious own companies and book writing stints) to see these problems.

Regards...Kris
---------------------------
kolberg -at- healtheon -dot- com
kris -at- olberg -dot- com

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=