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:Graphics vs. Schematics From:Christine Lienhart <clienhart -at- PREVUENET -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:48:45 -0600
I am getting ready to update a user guide that contains some schematics
that the SMEs are claiming to be "vague" to the user, which is resulting
in lots of calls to tech support regarding the setup of equipment. The
"equipment" consists of a PC unit and other components which will
require lots of cabling and connecting from one to the next (three or
four components altogether, stacked in a rack on top of each other). I
don't yet know exactly why the schematic is vague to the user, so I
don't know if it could be edited to clarify or if it is just the nature
of the beast (I think the former).
I am foreseeing a photo being difficult to read because it will be hard
to tell where a cable is connected in one component and where it ends in
another (the pics would be black and white so the color issue is moot).
But so far the SME is tickled pink at the thought of an actual photo (to
quote him "oh, boy howdie!"), so I may not be able to sway him.
So, do you think it would it be wise to switch to photos? Would it help
to have a schematic alongside the photo? Is it better to have only
photos or only schematics to avoid confusion? Which is more comfortable
for the user?
I'd appreciate any input!
clienhart -at- prevuenet -dot- com