Tech comm trends: Providing value as a generalist in a sea of specialists (Part VI)
Principle 5: Conform to the patterns and expectations of the genre and schemas
One way to reduce the complexity of experience is through a psychological principle called “script theory.” In a recent edition of Communication Design Quarterly, Kirk St. Amant explains that script theory refers to the routines and behavior we follow automatically and unconsciously based on the stimulus from objects, people, and other triggers in a particular space. These reflexive responses can be a good technique for making complex spaces more usable.
For example, when checking into a hotel, users encounter the lobby, receptionist, concierge, waiting area, check-in desk, and other details that trigger users into an automatic routine based on previous experiences. Almost without thought, when users encounter these “prototypes of space” (aligning with their previous details in similar spaces), they know what to do, the routine to follow, what’s expected of them, and what to expect from others.
By prompting users with the right stimuli — stimuli that align with the prototypes the user associates with that space — you help users naturally move about and operate in that space. St. Amant explains:
By catering my design to meeting your experiences, I make these items easier for you to use in that context.
Every genre has certain expectations around it. When you align your text with these genre conventions, you make it easier for users to find, navigate, and absorb the information.
One of the first steps to organizing and presentation information, therefore, is to understand the expected conventions in the genre. With some genres, the information has such a strong convention that going against it would create confusion and disorientation.
Documentation is a genre that has specific conventions that users expect. What are some of these conventions? Hans van der Meij is an academic researcher who “spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours analysing the products of technical communicators” to arrive at a pattern he calls the Four Components model. In this model, he found that procedures consist of the following four components:
- prerequisite states
- action and reaction
- unwanted states (warnings and troubleshooting information)
In other words, these are the core conventions of the documentation genre. When you shape information into these elements, users more naturally understand and interact with the documentation.
But we can apply this idea even further. This four components model (especially with goals, actions, and unwanted states) isn’t too far off from the structure of story itself, which underlies much of the way we see the world, not just documentation. In The User’s Journey, Donna Lichaw depicts the structure of story as follows:
In all my blog posts, presentations, and other writing projects, I always have one primary structure in mind: story. If you can shape information into a story, you’ll never go wrong. For example, recently at work, I was asked to do a competitive analysis of another product. I’d never written a competitive analysis before, and I started by gathering as much information as I could about the competitor’s product. I gathered a ton of information through research, but then I needed to figure out how to organize it.
I needed to structure this jumble of information in a way that would make sense to users. This is a task we all face when confronted with large amounts of information that we need to organize and present to users. What principle do we use to group, structure, explain, and otherwise present large bodies of information in ways that makes sense to users?
We structure it in the shape of a story — in this case, I structured it around “The User’s Journey.” This story structure makes complex information more consumable and usable to users.
For more information, see Conform to the patterns and expectations of the genre and schemas.
Principle 6: Reduce the complexity of technical language
One reason technical documentation is so difficult to follow is because of the unfamiliar terms and jargon in the content. Unlike most other professional writing disciplines, tech docs are notorious for the amount of specialized terms in their content.
API evangelist Kin Lane recently noted his frustration with an API’s language when he encountered the undefined acronym “DEG”. Lane explains,
I came across a set of API resources for managing a DEG the other day. You could add, update, delete and get DEGs. You can also pull analytics, history, and other elements of a DEG. I spent about 10-15 minutes looking around their developer portal, documentation, and even Googling, but never could figure out what a DEG was. Nowhere in their documentation did they ever tell consumers what a DEG was, you just had to be in the know I guess. (Using Plain Language In Your API Paths)
As a technical writer, using the correct terms for your knowledge and product domain is necessary. To simplify the language, you can’t just omit the appropriate terminology for the domain or substitute in more friendly names.
One approach for teaching users how to speak this language involves defining unfamiliar words for the user. You can define unfamiliar words in two simple ways: (1) in a glossary, (2) in “Background Knowledge” sections.
Most people are already familiar with glossaries, so I’ll focus on the Background Knowledge sections. This is usually a section I include near the beginning of some docs. Rather than trying to educate newbie developers on the knowledge domains, I provide a list of links the user can read to ramp up their knowledge. (In part, this is because much of my current documentation piggybacks on Android and assumes familiarity with Android concepts and techniques.)
For example, in a topic I was writing about how device filtering and compatibility works in the Appstore, I provided a number of links to foundational material in a “Background Knowledge” section to help users ramp up to the right level.
Glossaries and Background Sections only take you so far in simplifying language. There’s actually more you can do. The next step is to read the competitor’s documentation and see what terms they use for the same terms and concepts. By reading through the competitor’s documentation, you get a better grounding about the terms users expect and which are common in the domain you’re writing in.
For example, at my work I was recently rewriting the section on how to upload your APK file. We kept using the term “binary” rather than “APK,” which I suspected was nonstandard (in part due to support cases with confusion about this term). I decided to read through Google Play’s documentation to see how they used the terms binary and APK, and I found that they didn’t use “binary” at all. I’m not sure where this pet term developed, but it had completely saturated our internal discourse around this feature.
So I changed the term in the docs. Then during a UI refresh, I helped persuade the product manager that “binary” was the wrong term, so we changed it in the UI as well. Aligning terms with industry standard terms — which I learned by reading the competitor’s documentation — dramatically improved the information usability of this page.
Granted, this kind of knowledge gathering takes time, and we might object that we barely have enough time to edit the content we have, much less undertake reading how similar terms are used across the competitor’s documentation and industry at large. But this reading is precisely where terminology gets interesting. Our alignment with these more common terms contributes in large ways to the information’s usability.
If we only look at our own company’s use of terms, the definitions of the terms might seem clear and straightforward. But we run the risk of operating in a bubble, without awareness of the linguistic chaos and complexity going on outside.
For more information, see Reduce the complexity of technical language.
Principle 7: Iterate and increment on content following an agile approach
Whether you’re building an app or creating documentation, iterative development is a central principle of design. While iterative development is a good idea regardless of the complexity of the content, with complex content there’s a much greater need for iteration because you rarely hit the target on the first try.
When you’re developing software, it’s nearly impossible to predict whether your product will meet the user’s needs until you release it to the audience. Especially with highly complex products that involve a lot of different variables, conditions, environments, and business goals, iteration helps you eventually get the content right.
Software development’s big evolution to agile methodologies involved shortening the development cycle and incorporating regular product reviews between cycles. You code for a couple of weeks and then release something that you can show to customers or stakeholders. You gather their feedback and make sure you’re on track.
With each iteration, you might find yourself abandoning ideas or redoing features with another approach — essentially iterating on the same efforts until you get it right. If you find that you’re going in the wrong direction, well then you’ve “failed fast” and can course correct early on.
Here’s another way to think about it — what you’re creating is like an untested hypothesis or theory. Ian Spence and Kurt Bitner explain that agile software development follows a scientific hypothesis model, where theories are frequently tested to see if they’re correct:
In a sense, many things on a software development project are theories, or more accurately, assertions that need to be evaluated. The plan itself is composed of many assertions about how long things will take to accomplish. Even the requirements are assertions about the characteristics of a suitable solution. Just because some stakeholders or subject matter experts say a requirement is valid does not mean that they are correct. We need to evaluate even the requirements to determine whether they define the right solution to the problem at hand. (What is iterative development? — Part 1: The developer perspective)
Consider that documentation is a theory you construct about how users will be able to achieve their goals. How do you know if your theory is correct? You need to release the documentation theories into the wild and observe the results: did the theory hold true? Did the theory accurately describe the steps users would need to take? Then based on the feedback, you iterate on your theory to bring it closer to the reality.
Much has been written about how documentation can align with the development cycles and pace of agile software development. Most commonly, the advice for creating delivery docs that customers will read is to “document late” which helps you avoid “treading heavy.” In other words, if the project is in constant flux, don’t waste a lot of bandwidth and cycles updating your documentation with each change. Wait until the dust settles a bit, and then create your customer documentation.
While this approach is sound for working with agile projects, it misses the whole point of the agile development philosophy in documentation’s own development process. It assumes that writing is a one-and-done effort that can be completed at the last minute.
Instead, where iterative development with the software product ends (at least with its first big release), iterative development with the documentation should begin. Upon release (or earlier with focus groups, if possible), documentation itself should undergo the same iterations and cycles of review, similar to the software development process. At this point, documentation should be seen as its own project with its own life cycle, independent of the software project.
For more information, see Iterate and increment on content following an agile approach.
Your reactions and input?
You can see the responses (so far) here.