Re. Quicken help effectiveness study?

Subject: Re. Quicken help effectiveness study?
From: "Hart, Geoff" <Geoff-H -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>
To: "Techwr-L (E-mail)" <TECHWR-L -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>, "'Mark Dempsey'" <mxd2 -at- osi -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 11:46:05 -0400

Mark Dempsey remembers <<...a previous post here that claimed a study of
Quicken's fancy-schmancy help system demonstrated that: 1. Users felt
satisfied with the bells and whistles, but 2. Those who had paper docs
actually learned more.>>

That was me. My comments were based on a talk given by Jared Spool of User
Interface Engineering (www.uie.com possibly?) at the STC conference in
Anaheim a couple years back. Caveat: Jared didn't go into the details of the
study in his talk, and simply used it as an anecdote supporting the fact
that bells and whistles can improve the user experience without improving
performance. Have a look at their web site to see if the information's there
(probably not), or to get contact info. for Jared and his group.

--Geoff Hart, FERIC, Pointe-Claire, Quebec
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

"Technical writing... requires understanding the audience, understanding
what activities the user wants to accomplish, and translating the often
idiosyncratic and unplanned design into something that appears to make
sense."--Donald Norman, The Invisible Computer




Previous by Author: Documenting a product with no specifications?
Next by Author: Followup: Moving Word documents into HTML?
Previous by Thread: Re: Quicken Help Effectiveness Study
Next by Thread: RE: Word Master/subdocuments


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads