atw: Re: Should we give the users what they want?
- From: Bob Trussler <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:26:39 +1100
I think we have missed one important point.
A lot of people like the online version because they can find things
quickly.
Why go to the library when a Google search gives you lots of references in
seconds?
The obvious answer is that many searches return rubbish, both related or
unrelated.
If you have have read it before, returning to a book will usually give you
relevant information faster. (Wild unsupported statement)
At the uni library yesterday I spotted a display of those free postcards.
One had the phrase 'WHO NEEDS TEXT BOOKS GOOGLE IT'
Don't get me started ...
Bob T
2009/3/10 Peter Martin <peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Geoffrey:
>
> For some time, I've thought that the lack of rigorous follow-up research in
> this area was somewhat strange.
>
> What sort of stuff do Psychology students look for these days when they're
> throwing together a research project?
>
> Who needs a Ph.D. thesis subject or two or more ?
>
> Maybe we should collectively make suggestions that there's an of perception
> and/or educational psychology of potential international interest going
> begging in all of this.
>
>
>
>
> You wrote:
> > Stuart,
> >
> >
> > That’s not too bad a summary of my initial point, although it is not a
> “couple” of
> > studies. There are a lot of them. I listed just a couple, because I was
> providing an
> > argument, not a bibliography.
> >
> >
> > You might argue that my conclusion is sensible but unexceptional. I
> agree, except that
> > there are folks in our profession who are exhorting us to abandon this or
> that media on
> > the grounds that the younger generation prefer other media. This is not,
> as you implied
> > yesterday, a straw-man argument. Read the latest issue of Southern
> Communicator and you
> > see what prompted by initial post. This is a view I disagree with and I
> was attempting,
> > with yesterday’s post, to gauge the views of others.
> >
> >
> > The issue on which we disagree is of no direct relevance. I might think
> that
> > comprehension, to some degree, must always precede performance (however
> effective or
> > ineffective). You jump straight to performance (and Christine went
> straight for
> > learning outcomes). But the real goal of my second question yesterday was
> to see if any
> > in our profession is using a formula, algorithm or whatever to determine
> which media is
> > better than some other medium given such-and-such circumstances whatever
> the measure of
> > best might be: comprehension, performance, learning outcomes and so on. I
> hadn’t come
> > across any myself, or at least any with the backing of scientific rigor;
> but if others
> > knew of one or more, then it would be good to share the information.
> Because without
> > any such formula, algorithm or whatever, the choice of one medium over
> another comes
> > down to what? Subjectivity? Gut-feel? Reader preferences? The demands of
> lawyers? The
> > fad-of-the-month peddled by the marketing department?
> >
> >
> > Moreover, it would mean that the technology evangelists who are exhorting
> us to adopt
> > the media that the young prefer (wikis, mash-ups, podcasts etc) are also
> basing their
> > exhortations on non-scientific grounds. Don’t get me wrong: I am just as
> excited as any
> > other technical writer about new media. I just want to see the evidence
> that we will at
> > least maintain, and certainly not lower, our readers ability to
> understand our
> > materials if we embrace some such new media.
> >
> >
> > So to summarise my postings of yesterday: contrary to the technology
> evangelists who
> > are insisting that technical writers “must adapt” to the media
> preferences of the
> > younger generation:
> >
> >
> > - There are reasons why the media preferences of our users (young,
> middle-aged or old)
> > should not always be the deciding factor in our choice of media.
> > - There seems to be no scientific justification for preferring one medium
> over another
> > (new or old), or at least scientific justification based on comprehension
> or
> > performance. (The exception seems to be the numerous studies that show
> that paper out-
> > performs online, under many situations. But are there studies that show
> that wikis out-
> > perform online help? That podcasts out-perform printed user guides? And
> so on and so
> > on.)
> >
> >
> > I’m hoping that point 2 is wrong, and that someone on the list can point
> me to one or
> > more studies that do justify a choice of one medium over others (ceteris
> paribus and
> > all that). But until such studies are known, I for one are not going to
> yet too anxious
> > about new media. And wouldn’t it be splendid if we could give users every
> form of media
> > we could think of (as some correspondents are saying or implying). But
> the reality of
> > budgets and deadlines invariably means that we can offer only limited
> media. I would
> > love to be confident that the media I have chosen is best for my readers,
> and
> > confidence only comes with scientific rigor.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> > Geoffrey Marnell
> >
> > Principal Consultant
> >
> > Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
> >
> > T: +61 3 9596 3456
> >
> > F: +61 3 9596 3625
> >
> > W: www.abelard.com.au
> >
> >
> > From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> > Behalf Of Stuart Burnfield
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 4:50 PM
> > To: Austechwriter
> > Subject: atw: Re: Should we give the users what they want?
> >
> >
> > Geoffrey, is this a fair (if brief) summary of your initial discussion? -
> There's a
> > perception or assumption that younger people prefer reading online. -
> This preference
> > will become widespread as older folks retire. - A couple of studies show
> significantly
> > better comprehension of printed text compared with the same text read
> online.
> > (Comprehension was measured by asking questions to check understanding of
> the
> > material.) - In some cases poor comprehension would increase the risk of
> death, injury,
> > damage, financial loss, work performance, etc. - In these cases,
> shouldn't the medium
> > that is shown to provide objectively better comprehension should be used
> (in other
> > words, performance trumps preference).
> >
> > Laid out this way, the last point seems sensible (if unexceptional). You
> go on to ask
> > if we are measuring comprehension and using it to inform our choice of
> delivery media.
> > This is where I have some quibbles.
> >
> > Nearly all of my writing ultimately supports readers who use software to
> help do their
> > work. What matters is whether they can do their tasks successfully and
> how long it
> > takes. I have grave doubts whether comprehension, measured by asking
> questions about
> > the text, is a good proxy for how well and how quickly readers could
> perform tasks with
> > the text in front of them.
> >
> > Of course we would expect better comprehension to equal better
> performance. All things
> > being equal, it's hard to imagine that not being the case. But all things
> are not
> > equal. Depending on the subject I might want to use illustrations, maybe
> image maps and
> > animations. The last two are hard to do in print--did the comprehension
> test cover
> > that? Maybe print comprehension is better for text versus text, but
> comprehension of
> > text in print is not as good as for text plus graphics online?
> >
> > For those of you working in places where understanding *is* the outcome,
> measures of
> > comprehension are useful. I still have my doubts though about how you
> usefully compare
> > online and print--Can I increase the font size? Resize the window?
> Bookmark pages? Link
> > to other publications? Add notes? It seems to me you can only do a
> manageable study by
> > artificially excluding many of the advantages of each medium.
> >
> > You asked if we are doing anything to "assess the comprehension rating of
> the media" we
> > chose. Not in my case--in my last three contracts I haven't had any
> choice over the
> > media. So far I've never been in a position to dictate the delivery
> medium for the
> > users' own good.
> >
> > If I did have the choice, how much weight would I put on print versus
> online
> > comprehensibility? Some, but not much. There are a lot of factors under
> my control that
> > affect comprehension--Do I understand the users, tasks and environment?
> Is the language
> > appropriate? Unambiguous? Clear? Correct? I'd worry about these first.
> >
> > Geoffrey said:
> >> For example, licking and scrolling is considered more distracting than
> turning a page
> >>
> >
> > You're not wrong! Talk about your new delivery media... ;^)
> >
> > Stuart
>
>
> -Peter M
> peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> **************************************************
> To view the austechwriter archives, go to
> www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> "unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
>
> To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes)
> go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
>
> To contact the list administrator, send a message to
> austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> **************************************************
>
--
Bob Trussler
Phone 0418 661 462
Other related posts:
