Interesting question, my thought: Do we provide information in the most comprehensible format or the format which will actually be consulted and read? Which is more likely to prevent death or injury, comprehensive instruction materials no one reads, or less easily comprehended materials that people are reading? Best regards Michelle _____ From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Marnell Sent: Monday, 9 March 2009 9:51 AM To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: atw: Should we always give users what they ask for? Hello austechies, The digital age has changed the way we gather information. Where once we had only printed texts, we now have printed texts and a vast range of digital media. There is some evidence to suggest that some readers (especially younger readers) now prefer to source information from digital media and that some are shunning printed texts altogether. Some commentators suggest that this requires a radical rethink about how technical writers deliver information. There is good reason to think that the younger generation will carry their preferences with them as they become the middle generation and then the old generation; thus all readers will eventually prefer digital media. Best to get ready, then, and start leaving behind old technologies, such as printed texts. But hang on a minute. Should user preferences be the sole determiner of the media we choose for delivering technical documentation? Consider this case: * We are writing instructional materials to accompany a product whose misuse might lead to death or injury (say, a lathe, the control system of a nuclear-power plant, a dialysis machine, or the like). * We have an option to deliver the material in printed form or in digital form (via a visual display unit attached to, or near, the product). * We discover that the majority (even all) our intended audience prefers to gather information online rather than from printed texts. * We know from research that the comprehension of online material is poorer than that of printed material. That is, our understanding of material read online is poorer than of the same material read offline, as judged by our ability to correctly answer questions about it. (Cognitive psychologist and web usability expert Jakob Neilsen reports that comprehension can be up to 25% lower; other studies suggest as much as 60% lower: see "Effects of online reading" by M. Macedo-Rouet et al., Science Communication, vol. 25. no. 2, Dec. 2003, pp. 99-128. Also see "Online v. print reading: which one makes us smarter?", Scientific American, December 2008). In these circumstances, would we accept our audience's preference for online delivery knowing that comprehension of material read online can be as low as 60% of the comprehension of the same material read in printed form? Is there not, in such cases, a moral dimension to the choice of delivery media? In cases where death or injury might result from misuse, are we not morally obliged to produce documentation in whatever medium minimises the risk of misunderstanding, regardless of user preferences? Even in cases where misunderstanding is unlikely to lead to death or injury, there may be good reasons to override user preferences. Suppose, for example, that you manage a call centre. You have to decide whether the printed knowledgebase that your support staff now relies on should be converted to online and then decommissioned. You poll the staff and they all say that they prefer online reading. But if comprehension of online instructions is markedly less than of printed materials, the risk of customers getting poor advice from support staff is higher if support staff have only online references to rely on. Hence online delivery would potentially lead to greater customer dissatisfaction, and possibly even more support calls (as disgruntled callers call back for further assistance). Online might be cheaper, easier to maintain and preferred by your staff - and yet possibly a poor business decision in the long run. By all means let's explore new ways to deliver instructional material. But we need to temper our enthusiasm for new media with the realisation that not all media is be equally effective in transmitting understanding. Readers' preferences for particular media are important and need to be considered. But there are cases where considerations of effectiveness, and perhaps ethics, are of equal, if not greater, importance. Some questions for young readers (and others who prefer to read online) 1. Suppose you are studying for an exam. If you are like most students, you will want to get as high a mark as possible. Suppose you need to master the contents of a particular textbook to do well in the exam, and suppose further that the textbook is available for loan from the library and available online. Like all young readers, you prefer digital to paper media (or so we are told). But you happen to discover that comprehension of online material is poorer than that of printed material (up to 60% poorer in fact). Will you now study the textbook online or borrow it from the library? 2. Suppose, now, that you have got your degree and have started your first job. You want to get on quickly in the company, be seen as bright and enthusiastic, and not goof up. Your job requires you to consult lots of policies, procedures and work instructions. If you misunderstand these policies, procedures and work instructions, you may goof up. The policies, procedures and work instructions are available online and in print. You know that comprehension of online material is poorer than that of printed material. Will you opt to read the policies, procedures and work instructions online? Let the arguments begin. Geoffrey Marnell Principal Consultant Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd T: +61 3 9596 3456 F: +61 3 9596 3625 W: <http://www.abelard.com.au> www.abelard.com.au