tableT woes (was RE: Using tables for content

Subject: tableT woes (was RE: Using tables for content
From: "McLauchlan, Kevin" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com>
To: "Janoff, Steven" <Steven -dot- Janoff -at- ga -dot- com>, "techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 16:38:15 -0400

I'd go for your option "(d)".
In most cases, I like to give them some info, up front, so they have an idea of what they are doing and why, and then give clear instructions to actually DO it, which one could hope might reinforce the understanding with a bit of positive reinforcement (success at the task). So, I'm hoping that next time they have to do this (whatever) task, they either do it on their own because they understand and the steps are [now] obvious, or they at least breeze through because they know where they're going, and why.

-----Original Message-----
From: Janoff, Steven [mailto:Steven -dot- Janoff -at- ga -dot- com]
Sent: October-28-13 2:53 PM
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com; McLauchlan, Kevin
Subject: RE: Using tables for content

That's a good assessment.

Makes you wonder why there are so few studies in our field that we can rely on.

If I try to think of "landmark works" in our field or milestone studies (if you can call them that), I can only think of a few, like minimalism from John Carroll, Information Mapping from Robert Horn, maybe the development of DITA, and maybe one or two that escape me right now.

Software and computer use has changed so much in the last 20 years (tablets, etc.), that you wonder if any of the studies from the 80's and 90's would hold up.

The UX field might hold some answers but they seem concerned about other things these days. I think you're right about what our interest is.

You know, actually, I'm not sure I fully understand what our purpose is as tech writers -- which might sound odd because I've been one for so long. But is it, as you say, (a) to get the reader to successfully complete the task for which they are reading the instructions, or is it (b) to impart learning so that the reader might be able to perform subsequent similar tasks without having to consult the help, or is it (c) something else, or (d) some combination. It might be that the conflict is in this immediate goal (solve the problem at hand) versus the larger goal (educate the person). My interest has always been to educate, but of course I have to write to get them to solve the immediate problem at hand. I wonder what the value is of one versus the other. Is it *worth* trying to educate the user, or should you just "get them on their way"?

Thanks for percolating that notion. Now I have something to think about while I get the user on their way... :)

[snippety (for length)]

The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
message and deleting it from your computer without copying
or disclosing it.

New! Doc-to-Help 2013 features the industry's first HTML5 editor for authoring.

Learn more:


You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @


Previous by Author: RE: Pre-Installation heading
Next by Author: Saying "why do this" (was RE: tableT woes (was RE: Using tables for content
Previous by Thread: Re: Pre-Installation heading
Next by Thread: RE: tableT woes (was RE: Using tables for content

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

Sponsored Ads