05 Oct
Posted by Scott as advice, authoring, technical communication, writing
When the subjects of usability and user friendliness in relation to documentation are broached, writing isn’t often the first thing that comes to mind. But it should be.
Not matter what you’re writing — a manual, online help, a quick reference, or a script for a screencast — the writing is what’s going to make or break your work. Not the tool you’re using. Not the methodology you’re using. Not the formatting of the document. The words.
Making documentation more usable and user friendly can also involve changing the style of writing that you use.
Tim O’Reilly (yes, that Tim O’Reilly) had this to say:
People are looking for advanced tips and tricks. They’re not looking for the basics. They’re looking for things that will give them more of an edge. And they’re looking for it in a style that’s fun and engaging.
Admittedly, O’Reilly was talking about the books his company publishes. But the last sentence in that quote is the key: they’re looking for it in a style that’s fun and engaging.
Too often, the style of writing used in documentation is stiff, a tad formal, and can be verbose. Don’t get us wrong here. We’re not stating or implying that you can’t write. Sometimes, though, technical communicators get a bit complacent or just plain caught up in a set of writing standards. We have in the past. And those factors can get in the way of what’s crucial when developing information for users.
We’ve probably all been taught that we need to write in a more formal tone. Admittedly, there’s not a whole lot wrong with that. Technical writing doesn’t have to be scintillating prose a la … well, fill in the name of your favourite novelist here (I’m partial to James Salter myself). But documentation doesn’t have to be dry and boring like an academic tract or the articles that are published in a certain periodicals.
A key to writing documentation that’s easy-to-read and packed with information is to write tightly. Keep it short and to the point. You’ll have to choose your words very carefully to get the information that you need to get across in the shortest form. Keep it active. Keep it interesting.
You’ve probably heard people talking about documentation as a conversation. Why not interpret that literally and write as you’d speak? Clarity can come from writing in a more natural, conversational way. You might have to break a few rules of grammar. That shouldn’t matter if your writing is clear and gets the point across succinctly. Tom Johnson shared a few interesting thoughts on this recently.
Of course, you want to eliminate all of the the umms, ahhs, and y’knows. Eliminate the pop culture references, clever turns of phrase, and jokey allusions that you might normally use when speaking to friends, family, or colleagues.
Assume that you’re writing for the Web, even if you’re not. One piece of advice that’s given to aspiring Web writers is to limit sentences to 20 words. Preferably less. You don’t need to view that as a hard and fast rule, though. If you need to write longer sentences to achieve clarity, by all means do so. Here’s an example:
Something I see a lot of in documentation is phrases like … based on application status … Who speaks like that? Instead, why not write something like … based on the status of the application … The latter sounds natural.
Thoughts? Feel free to leave a comment.
Related posts:
9 Responses
Tweets that mention Change your writing style to make documentation more usable and user friendly by Communications from DMN -- Topsy.com
October 5th, 2009 at 6:45 am
1[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Habeeb. Habeeb said: RT: @dmnguys: Change your writing style to make documentation more usable and user friendly – http://bit.ly/KBkLm [...]
Gordon
October 5th, 2009 at 7:42 am
2I wish it had been recorded, but Professor Pullum (from Language Log) presented on this very topic at the UA Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland last year.
He was very much suggesting that we should write naturally, and if that means breaking some wrongly informed grammar rules (he was particularly scathing of Strunk & White) then so be it.
Reply
Gordon´s last blog ..How I use Twitter
Scott
October 5th, 2009 at 8:07 am
3Gordon, thanks for the comment. I’ll make a point of looking that presentation up.
Sarah Maddox
October 11th, 2009 at 3:25 am
4Interest post, Scott! I agree that it’s the writing that will make or break your document. If people find it too difficult to read, they’ll just go and look somewhere else for the information they need. This is especially true in the online environment.
On the other hand, we’re all always aware that we need to avoid levity where it would be inappropriate or jarring, and so detract from the content. It’s quite a balancing act that we need to perform, especially if we don’t know our audience intimately or if we have a diverse audience. I guess that’s where the tech writing skill comes in. I do think it makes our job a lot more fun, as well as the reader’s, if we do have the chance to be less formal and even to be funny or just plain odd. A bit of weirdness can certainly focus our reader’s attention on the page. Then we can get down to the serious job of imparting information.
Reply
Sarah Maddox´s last blog ..I got dragons and tweets in my documents
Scott
October 11th, 2009 at 11:08 am
5@Sarah Good point about levity. I’m not sure it has a place in documentation. That said, there’s no reason why you can’t write in a more natural, conversational voice without resorting to levity. It’s a balancing act, that’s for certain.
Alan
October 30th, 2009 at 5:20 am
6I used to be quite funny, but now I work for an outfit whose docs are translated into several languages. Many of the cultural references that almost unconsciously form the basis of informal writing don’t translate very well. Humour particularly. Like, I’ve no idea what my US colleagues are giggling about. Divided by a common culture. [Wry smile here at recognition of adaptation of old saying. Totally lost on anyone with a different background.]
The first pass of a lot of our translation is done automatically, and then fixed up by human ones. Idioms that don’t go through the auto translator cost us time and money. Some but not all metaphors don’t translate. Ungrammar and nonce words like ungrammar don’t translate. Same with fragments. Like that one. And a lot of the other rhythmic and conversational devices that can make a text more bouncy when you know you’re writing for a reader who lives around the corner.
Maybe our constant worrying about this makes us more straight-laced than we need to be. But arguing with my editor about whether a little light-hearted example will translate to Malaysian isn’t really the way I want to spend my day. So we end up being terribly straight.
Scott
October 30th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
7@Alan, you probably still are funny. It just doesn’t come out in the docs. And arguing with a technical editor can be a zero-sum game.
Craig
December 30th, 2009 at 9:43 am
8This is exactly what I’m trying to learn to do.
Scott
December 30th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
9@Craig, Good to hear! It’s definitely not something that’s easy to do but it is worthwhile.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
Blogroll
Past Entries
Communications from DMN is proudly powered by WordPress - BloggingPro theme by: Design Disease