I’ve been working for the same company for six years now, Christine. When I
took over their documentation, it was a mish-mash of fonts and styles – a lot
of it in Times New Roman. At that stage, I changed it all to Arial as that’s
what was used most often in online help systems that I’d seen. It was neat and
readable. Thanks for making me think about this though. It was probably not
long after that Microsoft changed their default font to Calibri. I hadn’t
thought about updating it but maybe I should.
The biggest change in this time has been the update from publishing to Webhelp
to publishing to HTML5. With that change, I had to decide whether to stick with
the traditional tri-pane layout (header, TOC at the side and a content pane),
or go to a top navigation layout with no TOC pane that looks more like a
straight website design rather than a documentation design. Although the top
navigation design is attractive, its limitation is that you can only have a
small number of top level headings, meaning users really have to search for
information rather than being able to browse for it. So I stuck with the TOC
pane as an additional means of navigation. It’s obviously something I’ll need
to keep thinking through as design tools develop.
As far as the writing goes, I am trying to be less wordy than I used to be. I
was taught to write in a step, result, step, result format, but I think the
results are often irrelevant now. You just need to put in the occasional result
so users can check that they are on the right screen or in the right place.
Having to adapt manuals that were written by people in a different country and
who were obviously not trained in technical writing has also made me question
how I write and whether I can take some cues from that style of writing, e.g.
there was no step numbering in those manuals and they had a very chatty tone. I
have kept some of the chatty tone but I have also put the step numbering back
in because it just makes it easier to see where you are up to.
I think that any company producing complex software – whether it be Microsoft
or an SME like the one I write for – is always going to need documentation. For
this not to be the case, the software would need to be written with lots of
input from users and experts in user interface design, and not just by
programmers. This just isn’t economically feasible even for big companies. So
there still needs to be an intermediary between the experts, who have the
knowledge but can’t necessarily put it into words that can be easily understood
by non-experts, and the users.
Dora
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine Kent
Sent: Tuesday, 24 May 2016 10:51 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Typefaces
Thanks for taking the question seriously, Dora
So on-demand on-line help systems still require excellent writing skills of the
non-entertainment kind.
Can I ask what fonts you are using, and are you using them simply out of habit
or because someone has thought it through?
Has anything changed about the presentation styles of those help systems, white
space, colour, fonts, menus etc? In other words, are you able to tell the
difference between a 10 year old help system and a recent help system just from
the style of presentation?
And here is one out of the box. Are the systems that need effective help
systems falling out of use and being replaced by more modern systems that are
more intuitive, are better supported on-line by the manufacturer and need less
customised support? I am thinking of the unwieldy SAP and it’s need for
customised development and documentation. It has always been a good meal ticket
for tech writers, but is it any more? By contrast, MS has supplied all the help
you could need for MS products, and so there is no need for third party books
any more.
From:
austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dora Evans
Sent: Tuesday, 24 May 2016 10:05 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: atw: Re: Typefaces
HI Christine,
I might be blindly and optimistically justifying my own existence but I think
documentation (or rather information) is always going to be relevant. I still
write user manuals and no matter how well software is designed, if it is
complex software, users are going to need additional information about specific
fields or processes that can’t all be designed into the screen. Or if it can,
it has to be in the form of context sensitive help which still needs to be
written.
The difference now is that we live in the age of Google where you can find an
answer to any question in a few seconds. So for the documents we write to be
relevant, they have to a) contain information that people want to know and b)
they need to be able to access that information pretty much instantly.
I have dabbled in making videos with Camtasia and I think they are good for
when you are first learning something completely new. That’s the only time
anybody is going to put a few minutes aside to watch a whole video. Other than
that, when you want the answer to a question, you want it immediately and
videos are no good for that.
We’re all suffering from information overload and attention spans are
decreasing, but people still need answers to questions and if we can provide
those answers, then we are still relevant.
Dora
From:
austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine Kent
Sent: Tuesday, 24 May 2016 9:29 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: atw: Re: Typefaces
If nothing else, judging by the rude dismissiveness of many of the replies to
this thread, I think we can characterise tech writers as needing to live in
their own certainty, and of protecting that certainty by ridiculing anyone who
dares to question it.
If there is anyone who does not consider the questions I am asking simply
ridiculous, please respond. If you redirect the emails of those who are always
ridiculing or dismissive straight to trash, we could have the intelligent
conversation that our fast fading industry has to have. We have let the
dismissive, the arrogant and the bullies take over this list and render it
worthless.
Is it's sole function now for a few scattered recruiters to advertise a few
scattered jobs?
Is any one of you at all concerned that we may be working in a redundant
industry in a redundant way and concerning ourselves with redundant issues?
Does any one of you suspect the world has moved away from your reality and now
lives somewhere else?
So some questions:
1. Are success and achievement now measured according to any form of
literacy criteria. Are they, perhaps, measured by something else entirely?
Maybe the younger people on the list could add some value here. My guess is
that your reality has moved on and you are barely aware that people were once
ranked in merit by their literacy skills.
2. How do modern readers read? Most do not seem to read print any more.
Print may have become "niche" with a few trendoids going to Readings to find
the latest fashionable tome to put alongside their vinyl records. Again, maybe
the younger people on the list could add some value here. My guess is that you
use electronics (as do I, by the way) with such normalcy that you can barely
grasp that print was once the only option. How has this led you to solving
technical communication issues differently from the old guard and past systems?
When do you still use print?
3. Does reading electronically re-wire the brain in any ways we should
consider significant? I suspect it does, and that font recognition is a
miniscule component of a much bigger change in the way the human brain works.
4. How do younger technical writers work? I am guessing that old technical
writers cluster in certain "old guard" industries and that young technical
writers live and work in a world we old guard are excluded from. My guess is
that you no longer even call yourselves technical writers, perhaps "content
developers", or have you now moved on from that too? You lurking recruiters
should have some insight into this.
5. Do the skills of old guard writers have any relevance in the modern
world?
6. Does everything using language, other than aircraft maintenance
manuals, have to be "entertainment" now ? Consider how the news has gone from
being the news, to being some pathetic form of entertainment delivered by
self-congratulatory pseudo comedians? (Any guesses about which woeful show I am
talking about?) Is there a place for "straight" writing in our industry and if
so, where (other than aircraft maintenance manuals
)? As an instructional designer, I have observed a strong shift from education
to entertainment. We can no longer expect students to be self-motivating. We
have to employ advertising industry style ploys to keep them "engaged", even at
university level. Does this have a flow through to technical writing?
7. Are there any absolutes with font use?
Are these not topics worthy of discussion?
Just once in a blue moon, it would be nice to indulge in some futuristic
speculations…[big sigh]……
-----Original Message-----
From:
austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lana Brindley
Sent: Tuesday, 24 May 2016 8:39 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: atw: Re: Typefaces
I read all my email in plain text ;)
L
On 23/05/16 16:53, Bob T wrote:
Peter,
I had the same problem, so copied the text to a document and changed the font
to a serif style, Palatino 12pt.
Happily reading it now, printed on paper.
Bob T
On 23 May 2016 at 15:34, Peter Martin <prescribal@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:prescribal@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:prescribal@xxxxxxxxx%20%3cmailto:prescribal@xxxxxxxxx>>>
wrote:
Christine:
I have been trying to read your email, which comes to me in a swathe of
sans serif font. I realise it made you feel good writing it. But it doesn't
make me feel good reading it.
Isn't this a problem?
-Peter M
On 23 May 2016 at 00:14, Christine Kent <cmkentau@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:cmkentau@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cmkentau@xxxxxxxxx%20%3cmailto:cmkentau@xxxxxxxxx>>>
wrote:
Yes,James,you are starting to get to a point that is intriguing me.
Aesthetics is much more important than we have ever given it credit
for.
We are mostly of a past generation, andfor many of usourmemory
ofwhatrealityis supposed to beis quite different from the new world we
arenowlivingin. Electronic not printis now the norm for vast numbers of the
population, and is sound bite not War and Peace.This is not some lesser
state.Achievement has just move to a different place.Itno longer rests with
the written word.When we are honest we doadmit that very few people ever read
what we write. We know that, but we don't stop to question why, and how, if
at all, we should be adapting.We still assume we can force others to view the
world the way it was, particular with respect to the written word. We can't.
Research into readability and comprehension in a laboratory
situationa relic ofthatpast era. It has nothing to do withreal life. You
canput some academic students in a room with differenttypefacesand measure
their comprehension,but that will tell youabsolutelynothing about howto get
an average person to read anythingthat is not delivered via Facebook or a
text message. This is where emotion comes inand we ignore it at our peril.A
personmay read a beautifully presented article onan aesthetically
presentedblog,write endless text messages,butfind that their mindsrefuse
point blank to reada government form they have to fill in.
We are living in a time of unprecedented mental exercise. Our work
and our recreation are largely about looking at things, reading things and
writing things- all language based activities. Many take no time out to kick
a ball or bake a cake or knit a sock or shell peas.The consequence is that we
are living in a time ofmental exhaustion. The whole western world is now
sufferingmental exhaustiontoagreater or lesser degree.In reality,
whatdoesmake usvoluntarilypay attention to the written word?One thing and one
thing only - emotion.
So back to fonts. If it looks good,and makes us feel good,we read it,
and if we feel good, we understand what we are reading. If it looks ugly
weresist reading itbecause makesus feel bad.If we feel bad we are less likely
to understand what we are reading.These are gross variables that far outweigh
the minor variables that researchers obsess over.
Aesthetics is very personal. I am sure someengineersreally do prefer
Helvetica and some girls can't read anything but comic sans. My mind likes
calibri.Put aHelveticaor times new roman document in front of me and I will
cringe with the uglinessof theHelveticaand the mind scrambling fussiness of
the times new roman. I will quicklydiscover some dishes that need washing
up.So who dare tell any of us we are wrong?
These are mypersonalobservations, and, as such, do not need to be
supported by some"expert”.I have expressed them to stimulate discussion, not
present the final word. The world is changing too fast for anyone to presume
to have the final word on anything.
We haven’t been here before.
-----Original Message-----
From:
austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Hunt
Sent: Sunday, 22 May 2016 8:24 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: atw: Re: Typefaces
We have been here before.
There are two approaches to the study of typography, the scientific
and the aesthetic. On the scientific side are the psychologists, who measure
eye movements, angles, and so on, and administer tests on the comprehension
of usually rather meaningless texts printed in a variety of forms. On the
other side are the typographers and designers, who write in near-mystical
terms of beauty and fitness for purpose and can, like the famous typographer
Robert Bringhurst, unselfconsciously refer to letters on a badly-designed
page as standing about like starving horses in a field.
In a 2011 paper, the psychologist G.E. Legge and the typographer
Charles Bigelow published the review article "Does Print Size Matter for
Reading? A Review of Findings from Vision Science and Typography", which is
available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3428264/pdf/nihms-399092.pdf
Legge and Bigelow concluded that, within a region they referred to as
the comfort zone, variations in font size do not affect readability very much.
Two other experimenters, Boris Veytsman and Leyla Akhmadeeva, tried
to determine whether typesetting niceties influence reading speed and
comprehension. Some of their work is described in:
1. Veytsman, B. and Leyla Akhmadeeva: "Towards evidence-based
typography: First results"
(http://www.tug.org//TUGboat/tb33-2/tb104veytsman-typo.pdf<http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/tb33-2/tb104veytsman-typo.pdf>)
2. Akhmadeeva, Leyla; Tukhvatullin, Ilnar, and Veytsman, Boris: "Do
Serifs Help in Comprehension of Printed Text? An Experiment with Cyrillic
Readers"
(http://boris.lk.net/publications/serifs1/serifs1.pdf)
3. ------: "Do Serifs Help in Comprehension of Printed Text? An
Experiment with Cyrillic Readers. Supplementary Materials"
(http://boris.lk.net/publications/serifs1/serifs1suppl.pdf)
4. Veytsman, B. and Leyla Akhmadeeva: "Towards evidence-based
typography: Literature review and experiment design"
(http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/tb32-3/tb102veytsman-typo.pdf)
Veytsman offered the opinion that typography is driven mostly by
aesthetics rather than by actual differences in reading speed or
comprehension. Over some centuries of typographic history, the really bad
design ideas died out, and now there few differences between the approaches
that are left, since they all fall within some comfort zone.
Note that all of the experiments described related to novels and
newspapers, and not to technical material, and so care must be taken in
applying the results.
I will make one more observation. Many studies in typography are
conducted by people who do not seem to have much idea about statistics.
As an erstwhile statistician, I am rather annoyed by this.
JH
**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go
towww.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter<//www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter>
To unsubscribe, send a message
toaustechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>with<mailto:toaustechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx%3cmailto:austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx%3ewith>
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION
modes) go
towww.freelists.org/list/austechwriter<//www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter>
To contact the list administrator, send a message
toaustechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:toaustechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx%3cmailto:austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
**************************************************
--
Bob Trussler