Writing To Be Read? Let’s Hope It Works
Posted on December 19, 2012
Filed Under Communication, Technology, The Writing Life | Leave a Comment
Oh dear, an august research paper reports that, at least when it comes to computers, people don’t read their manuals. “The median proportion of the times that participants reported solving problems with computer applications by using printed manuals was 0 percent,” the paper’s authors, David G. Novick and Karen Ward, advise.
Computer users reported they were as likely to ask for someone’s help as to read even online help.
That’s hardly an endorsement of technical writing in the computer biz, at any rate. But when you think about it, computer manuals should be among the most accessible examples of technical writing. They’re presumably written for a mass audience. Computer users aren’t required to read their manuals, but they don’t consult them anyway. Where does that leave technical writers? If we’re not required reading, will we have any readers? And if we are required, will we be read closely enough?
The stakes can be pretty high here, even if a tech writer’s readers aren’t working in a nuclear power plant or a hospital. You want processes and procedures to be taken seriously, to be absorbed by their users. That’s a prime reason for writing them out.
All of this argues for producing the most efficient technical writing possible. First, put yourself in a user’s shoes. How much patience is he or she likely to have? Not much, apparently. And you can’t simply hope that your reader will be conscientious enough to hear (that is, read) you out.
We haven’t read Novick and Ward’s lengthy paper, only the conclusion. (Researchers aren’t necessarily fated to be read, either.) But they note there that “Most of the participants in this study…were busy professionals who may not have felt that they had time to spend in exploring either the application interface or the documentation to find an answer.” Busy professionals in any arena – aren’t they a technical writers most likely presumed readers?
There’s reason enough here to read Novick and Ward’s full paper, and to give its findings and recommendations earnest consideration. We hesitate to digest them. They deserve to be read in full, like any well-written technical manual. – Doug Bedell
Comments
Leave a Comment
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
Recently
- Presentations With Forethought
- Technical Writing’s Lineage – Surely It’s Deeper than Digital
- At the Holidays, Twitting Amazon
- Successful Cookie Baking – From Mom, an Acknowledged Expert
- Slides for a Tech Writer’s Craft
- Digital or Not, Be Clear
- Being Watchful About Digital Designs…
- When Proposals Don’t Click, Keep Making Them Anyway
- Like a Good Gardener, Help an Enterprise Keep Itself Current
- We’re Leaders All, And Need to Think That Way
Categories
Archives
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
Blogroll