The Importance of Visual Communication, or How to Build a Dirt Sifter
September 6th, 2010 | Posted in blog 11 Comments »
Recently due to flooding in my window wells, I had to dig the wells deeper. I piled up the dirt and rocks around the outside, and then realized I needed to sift the dirt from the rocks because I wanted to put the rocks back in, but move the dirt elsewhere in my yard to re-slope it. To sift the dirt from the rocks, I needed a dirt sifter, also called a gravel sifter. I thought I could simply buy one at Home Depot, but they do not sell them. You have to make one yourself.
I searched online to find instructions to build a dirt sifter. There are plenty of sites, with no one single method for building a dirt sifter. For the most part, it involves a rectangular wood box with a wire mesh bottom. That sounds simple enough, but as I walked through Home Depot looking for these parts, I had many questions. What size should the box be? How spacious should the mesh be? Would the dirt sifter fit snugly on my wheelbarrow or slide off? Would I shake it in my hands? Would I roll it somehow? If I rolled it, did the sifter need wheels? How strong did I need to attach the wire mesh to the wood? And so on.
I did some research online to figure out how to build a dirt sifter. One guy had a sweet looking roller device on his dirt sifter, but no real instructions on how to build what he’s showing. Another site had one incredible diagram but not much else. Others failed to provide any visuals whatsoever.
It’s not enough to build a box with a mesh bottom. You have to understand exactly how you’ll be using it to sift the dirt. Shaking it manually? Using a trowel in a wheelbarrow? Somehow rolling it? If you’re shaking it in hand, you better have a plan for catching the dirt, and the whole box should be small and light. But if you’re catching it in a wheelbarrow, it needs to fit over the wheelbarrow, so it needs to be larger.
It wasn’t until I found the explanation on this site that I began to understand exactly how to build the dirt sifter. The explanation is full of photos for each step of the way. The author doesn’t assume much at all, and he even provides tips such as the following:
Nails or screws driven near the ends of a board usually cause the wood to split. Pre-drilling the screw holes will help prevent splitting.
I wasn’t born with innate handyman talent, so I needed all the info I could get. After buying the necessary resources and tools, I gathered them up in my backyard.
Gathering my tools.
I started screwing the box together. It seemed pretty easy at first. I drilled holes just like the instructions recommended.
It seemed pretty easy at first.
But then my wireless drill’s battery wore down, and I grew impatient, so I started to pound a nail in there instead. Ooops, the wood split.
The wood split when I used a nail.
I had to discard that piece of wood and use another scrap that I had a lying around the garage.
I attached the wire mesh to the wood using an metal strip I found at Home Depot. It was all pretty simple, but I was still wondering just how I would shake a box full of rocks and dirt.
Fortunately, the dirt sifter fit easily on the top of my wheelbarrow, and I could use my hand (with glove on) to sift the dirt. Here’s a short video showing how the dirt sifter works.
After watching this three minute video, doesn’t it answer all the questions of sifter mechanics that I raised earlier? Would a textual explanation be adequate or nearly as appealing to watch as the video? In my video above, you see exactly how the dirt sifter works — not so much the construction, but the mechanics of use.
I find myself moving more and more away from text when it comes to tech comm. While text is a good foundation for other materials, text simply fails to communicate and engage like visuals do. With a visual (whether an image or a video), you see so many details that you can’t convey briefly with text.
Case in point, I often help users on the phone with a specific application at work. I can listen to them describe what they’re doing, but I almost always prefer to share screens and watch them go through the process. When I do that, I can quickly spot what they’re doing wrong. Sometimes I see that the content they’re working with is copied over from Microsoft Word, or I see that they’re using an unsupported browser, or I see that they really are doing everything right and the system just has a bug in it. Visual communication is faster and more effective.
The visual communication doesn’t need to be professional grade. I’ve been making quick WordPress screencasts that take me about 5 minutes from start to finish (including the upload to Youtube), and no one has complained about the quality. I also often make customized screencast tutorials for clients. They love them. It clarifies things in so many ways, and it’s easier than writing instructions out by hand.
Text, by contrast, is tedious, cumbersome, confusing, and fails to engage the user. Text still has its place, but it’s more of a supporting actor than a lead role.
Sponsors
Tags: audiovisual, images, Screencasting, Screencasts, Technical Writing, video, visual medium
If you liked this post, keep updated with new content: Subscribe to I'd Rather Be Writing.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
3967 Subscribers
Jen (3)
DiSc (2)
Jenny (2)
Aneesha (1)
Barrie Byron (1)
Catherine Crane (1)
David Farbey (1)
Dawn (1)
Diane (1)
Fer O'Neil (1)
Tom – what are window wells?
Great post Tom. I can’t agree with you more about visual communication being the key actor in tech comm
Hi Tom. I believe that visual communication suppliments but does not replace the writtten word. I use both in my documentation but the visual stuff merely adds context to the hard copy. It is all about your audience admittedly but in certain situations a user may not be willing to sit through even a one video when they can read the first two lines of a piece of text. I also feel that we overlook the power of the searchability of text at our peril. I know you can add keywords to video to make it appear in searches but for me this is not as good.
nice post, Tom. first i didn’t understand what the post is about. i continued on reading the post and understand a bit, but there were a lot of details. you’re right. textual explanation is very confusing.
the movie tells all what you should know in short time and it’s much more effective.
I disagree that visual elements are a supplement. For most procedural documentation text should be the supplement to the images/video. Look at this help file:
http://help.hover.com/tutorials/hover/manual/282/2048-ios-2-on-iphone-3g/
Turn off images in your browser and then look at it again. It isn’t nearly as clear. The ugly truth is that using images decreases the need for an excellent technical writer. If you look at the previous example and completely ignore the text you can pretty much get through the tutorial. It doesn’t really matter what the author types.
One of the key differences is procedural vs. conceptual. If you are describing a new concept you need a good technical writer who really knows how to “teach”. If you are describing something procedural the you can just use a bunch of pictures and really anyone who knows how to complete the task could create the content.
Video adds a different twist. It can be very effective but requires that the author have some basic production skills. It can also affect the discoverability of the content. Here is an interesting approach.
http://www.noblesamurai.com/dojo/marketsamurai/7500-golden-rule-1-how-to-find-relevant-keywords
This company has created a video training that they then duplicate in text and still images. It gives them all of the benefits of video while still making their content easily discovered and easily scanned by their customers.
This is awesome. Aside from the fact that it is clearly communicated through effective use of both visuals and text, I have been looking for a similar sifter for separating sticks from my compost. This should work brilliantly. Thanks for lessons on communication and sifting technology.
That’s a nice bit of product placement for Bluehost. I’m sure they paid you a princely sum to wear that shirt. It’s yet another way in which TechComm can enhance the bottom line.
Seriously, this is a great example of how non-text formats are sometimes way better for describing both concepts and tasks. I disagree with Greg that “using images decreases the need for an excellent technical writer.” Instead, I think that an excellent technical writer is comfortable using both text and visuals (even if they might need help to produce high-end visuals), and knows when each one is right for the job.
Great post now I can Build a Dirt Sifter thanks Tom. I totally agree Visual communication is faster and more effective. When I beam2 with clients, we’re on the same page (or should that be screen!) the client can see what I am doing without any misleading emails or written documents. It all depends on the person but I notice every time I do a visual demonstration the process is a lot easier that a talk through over the phone or written instructions.
“While text is a good foundation for other materials, text simply fails to communicate and engage like visuals do. With a visual (whether an image or a video), you see so many details that you can’t convey briefly with text.”
You nail it perfectly.
Please see the following screen capture:
http://www.knowledgenotebook.com/tutorials/KN-visualization.html
Step 1: create text of key ideas, concepts, facts etc.
Step 2: understand them better with visual presentation
(Right = text; left = its visual presentation)
That’s an example where the visual only confuses me. At first I thought it was a chemistry diagram of some kind of molecule. Maybe you’re point is to say that text is more important than visuals, or that visuals are incoherent without text. Good point.
Very good point. Visual forms of learning are demonstrably better absorbed. They mirror the way we learn as infants – body language, facial expression, so on. Vocal forms for communication only come much later.