Author: Alan Pringle

Would you use just a gardening trowel to plant a tree?

As technical communicators, our ultimate goal is to create accessible content that helps users solve problems. Focusing on developing quality content is the priority, but you can take that viewpoint to an extreme by saying that content-creation tools are just a convenience for technical writers:

The tools we use in our wacky profession are a convenience for us, as are the techniques we use. Users don’t care if we use FrameMaker, AuthorIt, Flare, Word, AsciiDoc, OpenOffice.org Writer, DITA or DocBook to create the content. They don’t give a hoot if the content is single sourced or topic based.

Sure, end users probably don’t know or care about the tools used to develop content. However, users do have eagle eyes for spotting inconsistencies in content, and they will call you out for conflicting information in a heartbeat (or worse, just abandon the official user docs altogether for being “unreliable”). If your department has implemented reuse and single-sourcing techniques that eliminate those inconsistencies, your end users are going to have a lot more faith in the validity of the content you provide.

Also, a structured authoring process that removes the burden of formatting content from the authoring process gives tech writers more time to focus on providing quality content to the end user. Yep, the end user doesn’t give a fig that the PDF or HTML file they are reading was generated from DITA-based content, but because the tech writers creating that content focused on just writing instead of writing, formatting, and converting the content, the information is probably better written and more useful.

Dogwood // flickr: hlkljgk

All this talk about tools makes me think about the implements I use for gardening. A few years ago, I planted a young dogwood tree in my back yard. I could have used a small gardening trowel to dig the hole, but instead, I chose a standard-size shovel. Even though the tree had no opinion on the tool I used (at least I don’t think it did!), it certainly benefited from my tool selection. Because I was able to dig the hole and plant the tree in a shorter amount of time, the tree was able to develop a new root system in its new home more quickly. Today, that tree is flourishing and is about four feet taller than it was when I planted it.

The same applies to technical content. If a tool or process improves the consistency of content, gives authors more time to focus on the content, and shortens the time it takes to distribute that content, then the choice and application of a tool are much more than mere “conveniences.”

Alan Pringle

November 25, 2009

Read More

Font snobbery? (I don’t think so.)

For its 2010 catalog, IKEA used Verdana font instead of the customized Futura it’s used for years. To say people noticed the switch would be an understatement:

“Ikea, stop the Verdana madness!” pleaded Tokyo’s Oliver Reichenstein on Twitter. “Words can’t describe my disgust,” spat Ben Cristensen of Melbourne. “Horrific,” lamented Christian Hughes in Dublin. The online forum Typophile closed its first post on the subject with the words, “It’s a sad day.” On Aug. 26, Romanian design consultant Marius Ursache started an online petition to get Ikea to change its mind. That night, Verdana was already a trending topic on Twitter, drawing more tweets than even Ted Kennedy.

As a fan of IKEA and its products, I can understand the reaction. If you showed me a page out of an IKEA catalog with just text and prices (and no pictures or funky product names, of course!), I could tell you in a heartbeat that the content was from IKEA.

Verdana may be easier to read if you’re looking at the IKEA catalog online, but that font lacks the designer-y flair of Futura. Because IKEA is known for its affordable cutting-edge design, Verdana just doesn’t seem to quite fit the bill.

This situation reminds me of a comment a friend made about a failed hotel in Raleigh, NC. He said, “Did you see the awful Brush Script on the hotel’s sign? Those people clearly didn’t know how to run a business.” I doubt the Brush Script killed the hotel, but that bad design decision gave my friend (and probably many others) a very unfavorable impression about the company.

Earlier this week, Sarah O’Keefe and I were doing some web research and came upon a web site that used Comic Sans. My reaction to that site was less than positive. I loathe Comic Sans, and I find it hard to take any company seriously that uses a font that emulates text in a comic book.

A company’s use of fonts can become iconic–think about the fonts used by Coca-Cola and FedEx in their logos, for example. Font choice does have an effect on how people perceive content, a product, or a company.

I don’t think reactions to fonts are limited to just those who work in publishing and design. No snobbery here at all. (But if noticing fonts makes me a card-carrying font snob, you better believe that card would have no Comic Sans on it.)

For more about the impact of fonts, check out the documentary Helvetica:

Alan Pringle

September 4, 2009

Read More

Error message melodrama

The Shanghai Tech Writer blog has posted a screen capture of a rather ominous error message in FrameMaker:

The licensing subsystem has failed catastrophically. You must reinstall or call customer support.

I have never been the unfortunate recipient of that particular message in the many years I’ve worked with FrameMaker. If I did encounter that message, I would fully expect it to be accompanied by the shrieking strings from the Psycho shower scene. The use of “catastrophically” is a bit over the top. The fact I need to reinstall or contact customer support sets the tone enough, thank you very much–no soundtrack or scary adverb required.

The editor in me wants “catastrophically” removed from that message. If that bit of text came across my desk for review, I would have pushed back hard on the use of that word. It’s bad enough the user has to get a solution to the error, and referring to the problem as “catastrophic” is certainly not doing the user any favors.

Alan Pringle

July 20, 2009

Read More

Our first experience with print on demand (POD)

It’s been a little over a month since we released the third edition of Technical Writing 101. The downloadable PDF version is the primary format for the new edition, and we’ve seen more sales from outside the U.S. because downloads eliminate shipping costs and delays.

Selling Technical Writing 101 as a PDF file has made the book readily available to a wider audience (and at a cheaper price of $20, too). However, we know that a lot of people still like to read printed books, so we wanted to offer printed copies—but without the expense of printing books, storing them, and shipping them out.

We have published several books over the past nine years, and declining revenue from books made it difficult for us to justify spending thousands of dollars to do an offset print run of 1000+ copies of Technical Writing 101 and then pay the added expense of preparing individual books for shipment as they are ordered. Storage has also been a problem: we have only so much space for storing books in our office, and we didn’t want to spend money on climate-controlled storage for inventory. (Book bindings would melt and warp without air conditioning during our hot, humid summers here in North Carolina.) For us, the logical solution was print on demand (POD): when a buyer orders the book, a publishing company prints a copy using a digital printing process and then ships it.

We chose Lulu.com for our first experiment with POD, and so far, we have been happy with the quality of the books from there. We are still exploring our options with POD and may try some other companies’ services in the future, but based on our experience so far, I can offer two pieces of advice:

• Follow the specs and templates provided by the printer, and consider allowing even a bit more wiggle room for interior margins. The first test book I printed had text running too close to the binding, so I made some adjustments to add more room for the interior margins before we sold the book to the public.
• Look at the page sizes offered by the different POD publishers before choosing a size. If you choose a page size that multiple POD publishers support, you’ll have more flexibility in using another publisher’s services in the future, particularly if they offer other services (distribution, etc.) that better suit your needs. Also, ensure the page size you choose is supported when printing occurs in a country other than your own; some publishers have facilities and partners in multiple countries. In an attempt to minimize the amount of production work for the third edition, I chose a page size for Technical Writing 101 that was the closest match to the footprint of the previous edition’s layout. However, I likely would have chosen a different page size if I had known more about the common sizes across the various POD companies. The page size I chose at Lulu is not supported by CreateSpace, which is Amazon’s POD arm. When you publish through CreateSpace, you get distribution through Amazon.com, which isn’t the necessarily the case with other POD publishers. (I’ve read several blog posts about how some authors use the same sets of files to simultaneously publish books through multiple POD firms to maximize the distribution of their content.)

In these tight economic times, POD publishing makes a lot of sense, particularly when you want to release content in print but don’t want to invest a lot of money in printing multiple copies that you have no guarantee of selling. The POD model certainly was a good match for Technical Writing 101, so we decided to give it a try.

I’ll keep you updated on our experiences with POD publishing in this blog. If you have experience with POD, please leave a comment about how it’s worked for you.

Alan Pringle

June 3, 2009

Read More

Technical writing and social networks

There is an interesting thread on techwr-l about using social networking sites to deliver product information. In the thread, Geoff Hart notes there is a generation gap in those who turn to unofficial online resources vs. product documentation:

The young’uns go to the net and social networks more than we older folk, who still rely on developer-provided documentation. We ignore this change at our peril. Cheryl Lockett Zubak had a lovely anecdote at WritersUA a few years ago about how she and her son both set out to solve an iPod problem; they both found the solution in roughly equal amounts of time, but she found it in Apple’s documentation, while her son found it on YouTube.

My experience as a user straddles both relying on official docs and information available elsewhere. When my iPod locked up a few years ago, I found decent information on Apple’s web site, but the best resource for my particular problem turned out to be on YouTube. A user had made a video showing step-by-step what to do.

The dilemma of official docs vs. Web 2.0 information partially boils down to question of audience. As part of the process for planning and developing content, technical communicators should evaluate and remember the audience, and that audience consideration now needs to extend to how a company distributes the content. I don’t think there are cut-and-dried answers here; for example, it’s unwise to make the assumption that all folk over a certain age are unaware of or don’t use social networks and other Web 2.0 resources. Ignoring unofficial information channels is certainly not the solution, however.

Alan Pringle

June 1, 2009

Read More