TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Does the sequencing reflect the actions of the user or the user does once at
this screen? If the steps reflect what should be done/can be done once the
user is at the screen, then numbered steps are the most user friendly way to
go. There should still be a sequence of steps the user follows once that
screen is reached, no matter how he reached it.
I am a big supporter of information mapping and usability. Adding numbers
to the steps makes it much more clear to the user that these are 1) steps to
be taken as opposed to a standard bulleted list that may or may not be paid
attention to, 2)items that must be done in a sequential order or something
bad will happen and 3) to draw the user's eyes to the steps.
I'm not sure why your writer is pushing for bullets, but I believe the
correct and more usable way to present the information in numbered lists.
MHO and experience.
From: Stephen C. Gillespie [mailto:sgillespie -at- fedex -dot- com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 9:07 AM
Subject: Bullets vs. Numbers
I need your help to settle an argument with a writer in our group (yeah,
I'm the editor!). The issue is with bullet lists (versus numbers) for
all procedures in a software user guide.
The manual is packed with discrete little tasks, each connected to a
screen in the system. The problem (IMO) is that all steps are bulleted
I maintain that each task MUST have (some kind of) sequence, i.e.
proceed (usually) linearally to its end - the goal of the task (i.e. why
the user wants to be there in the first place). Of course, I'm fully
aware of the variety of style found in documenting complicated tasks:
conditional action; also nonsequential action: continuous,
time-dependent, and concurrent (see "Procedure Writing: principles &
practices." Wieringa et al. Coloumbus: Battelle Press, 1993 for an
There's SOME of this in this manual, but certainly not ALL.
The writer, a long-time purveyor of the information set, argues that the
information (specifically each screen & task set) may be accessed from
'so many different places and points in the system,' that there's really
NO SEQUENCE AT ALL.
Finally, my response is that such a system (represented by the
documentation) would be UNteachable, UNusable, UNworkable, even
UNknowable! (and this is a very old, reliable FedEx sys).
I don't want to be an autocrat (my way or the highway!) here, so any
rational advice is appreciated.
Sponsored by Weisner Associates Inc., Online Information Services
Training & consulting for RoboHELP, Dreamweaver, HTML, and HTML-Based Help.
More info at http://www.weisner.com/train/ or mailto:training -at- weisner -dot- com -dot-
Sponsored by SOLUTIONS, Inc. http://www.SolutionsEvents.com or 800-448-4230
RoboHELP 2000 for HTML Help Seminars, Basic & Advanced, 6/28-30, Boston, MA
Hands-on Training from Char James-Tanny, Certified RoboHELP Instructor
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
mary -dot- hightower -at- corp -dot- bellsouth -dot- net
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-32144Q -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.