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.
Subject:Downsizing (literally) the manuals: some results From:Ron Rothbart <ron -dot- rothbart -at- DOCUMENTUM -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 24 Dec 1997 15:51:29 +0800
A couple of weeks ago I posted a question about the costs and benefits of
downsizing manuals from 8.5 x 11 to 7 x 9 inches or thereabouts (7.5 x 9
seems the most common size). I said that someone from marketing was asking
me for some hard data.
I also asked a colleague in our Usability group to post a similar question
to utest, the usability testing mailing list.
We got a lot of interesting responses. I appreciated all of them, but only
two or three, all from utest, really qualify as the kind of "data" that
marketing was looking for. FYI, here they are:
>From: "Betsy Comstock"<Betsy_Comstock -at- Pictel -dot- com>
>Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:01:47 -0500
>In 1987, Anne Clemens and I published one small field study of customer
>perceptions of Digital's computer manuals. (Annual Meeting of the Human
>Factors Society, 1987, 139-143.) One of the findings of this study was a
>preference for the smaller format over the traditional 8.5 x 11 format.
>Reasons were based on use -- the need to carry the manuals around, to use
>them while standing up, and to use more than one at a time.
>As with most field studies, one of my strongest memories was something we
>didn't set out to discover, but just noticed -- and that was the ways
>people tended to organize their bookshelves. SIZE was one of the strongest
>organizing principles (to optimize bookshelf efficiency, I guess). People
>would put manuals together because they were the same size, not necessarily
>because they were topically related. They also used binding type, color,
>and vendor to arrange their books. This meant that extensive sets of
>reference manuals that included some big books and some smaller books (or
>some binders and some bound) were often not arraged near each other, making
>it harder for people to scan to locate the manual they wanted.
>Hope this helps,
>Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 14:19:20 -0800
>From: Trevor Grayling <trevor -at- mdli -dot- com>
>Several years ago, we similarly reduced the size of our end-user manuals
>from 8.5 x 11 (in 3-ring binders) to 7 x 9 (perfect bound). This was in
>response to a phone survey of 50 of our end users, which asked about the
>size of the documentation (among many other issues). Users overwhelmingly
>did not like the large manuals. The main criticism was that they take up
>more than half your desk when open and were heavy and awkward to handle.
>After we changed to 7 x 9, we did a similar survey. This time, users liked
>the new size. More accurately, it had become a non-issue: Many users were
>puzzled that we asked the question.
>Note that we still use 8.5 x 11 for our System Administrator manuals.
>MDL Information Systems, Inc.
>San Leandro, CA
>Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:17:40 -0500 (EST)
>From: Diane Lewis <lewis -at- virtualprototypes -dot- ca>
>A few years ago, we changed the dimensions of our manuals from 8.5"x11" to
>7"x9.5. We did it because our customers were complaining that the manuals
>took up too much space on their desks and/or shelves, and could not easily
>be brought home in a briefcase.
>At a recent User's Conference, some of the same customers told us they are
>much happier with the smaller format.