atw: Re: Should we give the users what they want?
- From: "Caz.H" <cazhart@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:00:10 +1100
Warren
A lot of scope creep on the initial thread and you've introduced a whole lot
more.
All of the examples you've provided are matters of workplace culture and/or
competence.
Alas, the incompetent are unaware of their incompetence, as they don't grasp
what it takes to be competent. The problem is only ever solved by hiring
competent and self-motivated people in the first place.
The medium for provision of information probably has a symbiotic
relationship with workplace culture (for better or worse), but won't, per
se, contribute to better culture or better competence.
C
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Warren Lewington
<wjlewington@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> The short answer to this long and complicated multi-disciplinary
> discussion is “yes”, we should give the users what they want. They
> ultimately want to go home at night, be more satisfied that what they have
> learnt is useful to them, finish their work, or just use something that
> makes life easier, or safer, or whatever. To that end, we disseminate,
> interpret and reconstruct information using media that is, ideally, directly
> related and directly accessible to the user. Unfortunately, for most of us
> there are commercial, legal and time related constraints as well as economic
> limitations on all the contingencies that we face when trying to convey
> information to the users we are supposedly ‘communicating’ to.
>
>
>
> I can point to a number of personal experiences relating to elements of
> Geoffrey’s original post. The first and most pointed example of poor
> comprehension and misuse of documentation was Chernobyl. This graphic,
> devastating and deadly disaster was shaped by a number of large errors,
> basically relating to poor interpretation and misunderstanding by superiors
> and subordinates of their roles in the management of the nuclear power
> plant. At all levels, documentation, procedures and protocols were ignored
> and poorly handled, leading to a devastating result, which killed thousands
> (and continues to kill even today).
>
>
>
> My own experience of working in and around lathes, power tools, welding and
> milling equipment in general as well as in and around engines, motors and
> pneumatic/hydraulic/electrical equipment for some twenty odd years along
> with variously well and poorly educated people indicates to me that safety
> and collegiate consideration of safety is varied. It goes from non-existent
> concern (like the idiot whom actually was a boy in Hungary when Chernobyl
> blew up and could not have dairy for months) who constantly left the chuck
> key in the lathe when he finished with it; to people who were so obsessed
> with safety that they actually started sending businesses broke. Where is
> the compromise here? The materials, training and documentation was all
> available and read by the players in the game – and none of it matters a
> damn if someone won’t pay heed to it. At the end of the day, comprehension
> is about taking the time to enact the self discipline of the individual to
> retain and regurgitate the knowledge gained. This is my first point – people
> will learn if they are motivated to and will enact what they learn if they
> are motivated to actually do the actions.
>
>
>
> Information design and delivery is another issue altogether. If the users
> are inclined to online learning then that can be a useful guide towards the
> engineering of the information and communication. More particularly, it is
> useless to a mountaineer if the latest head torch came with a DVD to play,
> when you are at 6000 metres addle brained from fatigue and oxygen
> starvation, facing a howling gale and whiteout and you need to know how much
> light the battery will give you because to change the battery you have to
> remove your gloves, and it is minus 30 degrees Celsius – frostbite in
> seconds territory. So what, it may be the latest Flash technology on the DVD
> but it won’t help the mountaineer will it? What will? Probably an engraving
> on the back of the battery case, clearly marked, and designed into the
> moulding. For the same purpose, if you are using a CNC lathe, then
> delivering the instructions via the touch screen about how to configure the
> equipment as well as supplying printed materials on plasticised paper in
> very well bound books, hard cover, with maybe metal covers is a better plan
> than simply handing the fitter a DVD with the documentation on it. Likely
> the fitter won’t know what the hell to do with it, hand it to the secretary
> who will simply dump it into her drawer. And the new lathe will be broken or
> work will be damaged. Equipment that could kill should have the warning
> labels nicely clear, and text isn’t the answer anymore, English is uncommon
> in many workshops in Australia these days and so the resort to art and
> graphics is far more useful, and conveys more safely to non-English speaking
> backgrounds.
>
>
>
> Lawyers only confuse the matter, and notifications like “don’t iron clothes
> while wearing them” is the result, hiding more useful information such as
> “it is recommended you use distilled water when steam ironing” or “please
> don’t let the water level fall below that point”. My comment here is – what
> idiot who deserves a “Darwin exit early from the gene pool ticket” given to
> them will read ‘that ironing clothes while you are wearing them is stupid’ –
> my contention is they wouldn’t read the instructions or listen to them even
> if they were clubbed over the head with them. Seriously. Again it comes back
> to my first point. You can’t communicate with stupidity. Further, I don’t
> think you should take any hint of morality with you when you face a lawyer –
> they certainly don’t see law as having any moral basis whatsoever, only who
> wins here.
>
>
>
> At the end of the day, when we look back at the information we create, we
> need to look at the ceiling and look sideways, how many different ways can
> we re-produce our communication to ensure that all the users of our
> information and communication are actually able to comprehend the stuff we
> produce. If the users are on-line, then have we produced information that is
> useful and comprehendible? If the users prefer print, is the output to a
> printer nicely laid out in way that draws the reader to the information? We
> are the gate-keepers to information, and in my experience, it is better to
> know how many ways you can skin the cat, rather than be a master of one. My
> favourite tool in my technical communication arsenal is “when can I use it
> (being the product)?” If you can’t use it because you were never qualified
> as a fitter or whatever (even a soldier in military terms) then are you
> qualified to design the user information? My contention having worked with
> documentation about computerised systems in automotive applications written
> by people who have no technical understanding indicates to me that you must
> have a base-line of knowledge about what you are producing information for –
> even to tell an engineer to pull their head in and provide the truth thank
> you. How do you like it when recruiters ask what does a technical writer do?
>
>
>
> How do I learn? Well I used to only learn from books, and my library at
> home testifies to that. I have had to relearn to read and comprehend using
> my computer, particularly because I am sick of printing things out and
> reading them and throwing them out. It is an interesting experience. I have
> started a TAFE course learning AutoCAD and engineering drafting. As a result
> I am finding out how useful and how not so useful help can be. Fortunately
> AutoCAD is very good with the help, and last night was a classic example of
> how users can get themselves in a twist. The help was there, and in a rush
> (during a test) I poorly interpreted the instructions in the help, and it
> took several goes before taking a deep breath and fully forcing myself to
> comprehend what was in the help BEFORE actually carrying out the steps. My
> comprehension was the problem – because I rushed it. Only when I took my
> time to learn it – my own learning time which is different for everyone –
> did I actually get the gist of what was required. The help was bang on,
> excellent, it was me who was the problem. When I worked at Repco, with the
> diagnostic information we produced, which was multidisciplinary, training,
> print, and online, with the information designed for all three individually,
> we would still get the lazy mechanics ringing for information they already
> had. Why? Because they were too lazy or busy to go looking for it, often
> when the information was above them or within reach or even on the computer
> in front of them. The fact that they would have taken a couple of minutes
> finding it, and, rather then spent 40 minutes on the phone only to abuse us
> for taking too long to get to them was a bit beyond me in the end. You
> couldn’t club them – they were too far away. They wanted the easy way out,
> which is important, make the information easy to get to, whether print,
> online or on a sticker, or a disk. Like the mountaineer, the battery
> replacement is life and death, and the instructions on a computer disk will
> help at home; but will they help at 6000 metres or hinder?
>
>
>
> We need to consider our users, and the possibilities of variation as
> learners they all might present to the information we produce. The user is
> also the choice maker about how they might or might not choose to
> comprehend, and then the chooser about how they utilise our information
> produced. Ultimately we are also bound by the limitations of commercial
> reality. We are a cost, and there are no easily quantifiable ways of
> calculating with any real accuracy how much we value add. We are at the end
> of the day, required to compromise, and that is a judgement call. Sometimes
> we get it right. Other times we don’t. It is the times we don’t that present
> the most opportunity to learn, but whether we get the chance to review is
> quite another story.
>
>
>
> Okay. That’s a few rushed thoughts. I have to go! Talk soon everyone. Love
> this discussion.
>
> Warren Lewington
>
>
>
> WJL Consulting
>
>
>
> M: 0408 612 752
>
> P: +612 9876 5345
>
> F: By arrangement
>
> PO Box 404
>
> Liverpool, NSW
>
> Australia
>
>
>
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential. It is only
> intended for the recipient/s named above. If you are not the intended or one
> of the intended recipient/s, any unauthorised use is prohibited. If you have
> received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender so that arrangements
> can be made for its retrieval or destruction.
>
>
>
--
Carolyn Hart
Other related posts:
