I've read about a study of reading that theorized the process by which
we anticipate and discriminate among possible meanings. The long and
short of it, as described in the theory, is that we use the process of
elimination to choose among alternative meanings. So when the
instruction uses, for example, an article (the,a) before a noun, I as
reader have to apply the rules of article usage, if only to discover
that the article had no effect on meaning. If the instruction had not
used any explicit article, the cognitive overhead would be lower because
the reader would not have to process the rule of definite or indefinite
articles. The examples Yves gave from the automotive manual demonstrate
that meaning is not lost or confused by this particular practice of
leaving out articles, while at least one theory predicts that meaning is
arrived at with fewer diversions, which I count as a step toward
readability.
In my experience, where I have written manuals for licensed/expert users
of medical equipment, these users wanted telegraphic style because they
needed procedural instructions only to prompt their recall of things
they knew. They knew the procedures already, but needed to reload the
details into working memory, and they definitely preferred instructions
written in telegraphic style. Interestingly, those manuals also
provided illustration of every step, which is similar to many automotive
workshop manuals. This "graphic + telegraphic" design of instructions
appears to be one typical standard for readers who have a background in
the subject matter under instruction.
The study I referred to above is in my Cognitive Studies library, but it
may take a long time to find. I'm slowed in m y search, it seems,
because my books all seem to have that doggone overburden of speech
parts couching meaning.
Of course, YMMV.
Ned Bedinger
doc -at- edwordsmith -dot- com
Susan W. Gallagher wrote:
Not true, Ned. Sorry to disagree. When we read, we go thru a series of
activities, some of which involve eye movement and others that involve
cognitive processing. One of the biggies is congnitive parsing. Simply
put, cognitive parsing is the act of anticipating the next word or part of
speech based on what's gone before. Leaving out words, then, provides
a larger cognitive load, not a lesser one, as our brains must re-parse
the phrase or sentence that does not meet our expectations, in effect,
filling in the words that the author saw fit to omit.
my two cents
-Sue Gallagher
---- Ned Bedinger <doc -at- edwordsmith -dot- com> wrote:
Effect on the readability and translatability
of the text?
Readability increases. The omitted words are like a tax on the
reading-- they create cognitve overhead for the reader. They simply
aren't useful and are indeed hindering for instructions about such a
narrowly-defined context (a workshop manual for a particular piece of
machinery). In this case, shorthand is fine, because the reader and the
author share the necessary vocabulary and concepts to communicate
efficiently about a procedure. Beyond that, I think it is really all
about tone--shorthand instructions patronize the reader who has the
necessary background to understand the procedure. They are respectful
of that shared knowledge, and speak directly to such a reader.
WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word features support for every major Help
format plus PDF, HTML and more. Flexible, precise, and efficient content
delivery. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Easily create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to any popular Help file format or printed documentation. Learn more at http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
