|
QUESTION:Anonymous is working "in a small Technical Communications department in
a large corporation" and is concerned that the writing style of this
department is "moving out of the realm of serious-looking documentation
and moving into a real 'cutsie' kind of thing." Anon goes on to say,
"Don't get me wrong; the content of our work is exceptional. But, the
style it's presented in is something else. We are stuffing our pages
full of lots of color and clipart. Our prose style is... hmmm... how do
I describe it? Is there a word for a prose style that is much more
informal than 'conversational'?" Anon wonders, "Am I going to be taken
seriously in an interview for a position as a technical writer
somewhere else if what I have in my portfolio are comic books?"
I wonder what caused the change, Anon? Did a document magically appear
one day with no prior warning and get past your editorial and style
reviews? How did this change of style come about? Were the writers
consulted? You mention that "We have gotten no direct feedback from our
users on these documents." Does that include the time before this
massive style change? Just exactly how did this change come about and
what were the reasons, if any, for it?
I can envision that there was much debate and discussion before such a
different documentation style was enacted. Were you on the losing side
of these discussions? If so, your complaints now would seem like sour
grapes.
"Our reviewers either love the documents or hate them - there is no
middle ground," you wrote. That's not uncommon whenever there is a
major change. It means little, and in this case I'm not even sure that
usability testing would mean much. However, a survey might be
interesting. I'm surprised that with such a major change in style and
approach that no such surveying is underway in a large corporation.
Such a survey would be standard practice in a large organization where
responsibility is diffused.
Will it hurt you when you are looking for your next job? It might with
some, but it wouldn't with me. What WOULD hurt you is a dismissive
attitude toward such writing that tells me you are nothing more than a
disgruntled loser of the great style debate at your company. In fact, a
clever interviewee would use examples of various styles to show the
interviewee's flexibility when it comes to adapting to a house style.
I guess I do think that you are "too wrapped up in...the Supreme
Importance of Technical Writing and the Methods We use to bestow our
knowledge upon the lesser mortals," to quote your own words. Honestly,
that attitude really turns me off. Just because our audiences need the
information we have been hired to provide them does not make them
stupid or lesser. That's why we're here, to communicate information to
those who need it in a way that will be effective. If cartoons are
effective, use them.
ANSWER: I admit to having little patience with cuteness for its own sake, especially
in tech writing. The real question is whether for the intended audience this
cleverness impedes the message or makes it more accessible. Sounds like a
little of both.
If you can't talk them into doing usability testing, make things as clean as
you can. I firmly believe that many things we write about are complex, but
that doesn't mean that they have to be difficult. If you must use the clip
art, etc., do it in a way that is meaningful to the audience and enhances
the accessibility of the information (icons for notes, etc.).
Somoe historical background that may be of interest -- Back in the Vietnam
War era, the U.S. Army found that a lot of its recruits had trouble
reading... anything. Many were foreign nationals who had at best a limited
knowledge of English. Maintenance manuals for heavy equipment were written
in ponderously passive prose. Given the need to get people up to speed
quickly, they hit upon a solution called the "Improved Documentation and
Training Procurement Standard, " or "ITTY-DITTY," as it was fondly known.
These manuals were essentially comic books that were both motivational
(telling a story) and technical (how to keep the equipment working). They
also used a limited subset of English and simple sentence structure.
For this audience, they did the job. The books were short, but they were a
nightmare to maintain, partly because of the highly graphic nature of the
presentation and the range of equipment. They did, however, provide quite a
steady source of income for a lot of writers and illustrators. Eventually,
the Army scrapped the standard, but it is an example of using a "comic book"
approach to reach a particular audience.
It might have been better to teach these folks how to read, of course, but
that is a time-consuming process, and this was "WAR".
In the civilian arena, a company I worked for in the 80s produced a book
called, "The INFOS Storybook," which told how a company implemented a
database and saved zillions of dollars and increased job satisfaction in the
process. It was engaging and informative. Pretty technical, too. Customers
remembered it. It won an STC award. So there IS a place for that kind of
thing.
I agree with usability testing -- or even just polling readers -- is
probably the key to resolving your dilemma. If you really find doing this
stuff distasteful, there are a lot of other jobs out there. If you find it
fun, go for it and don't worry about its effect on your career. In the long
run, you will probably learn something from the experience. In the short
run, you'll stretch your creative muscles.
|
|
|
|
