Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/97426.97988acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free access

How do writers view usability information? A case study of a developing documentation writer

Published: 01 September 1990 Publication History

Abstract

As Dieli (1989) notes, writers sometimes have trouble focusing their concerns into questions that usability groups can test. As teachers of future documentation writers, we have observed that writers also have trouble turning the results of those usability tests into strategies for document revision. Our first investigation into these issues—see Sullivan & Porter (1990)—described a class of fifteen professional writing students employing usability information to write computer documentation. That study indicated that the writer's use of information is guided by that writer's rhetorical orientation, particularly his/her view of the audience/user. Though all the writers in the study conducted the same type of usability test (modeled after Atlas' “user edit”—see Atlas, 1981), they interpreted their test results in different ways.
This investigation continues the Sullivan & Porter (1990) study using a longitudinal case study of one professional writer, called “Max.” This follow-up study aims to probe how the writer's rhetorical orientation guides that writer's interpretation of usability test results.
We take a slightly uncommon view of usability. We have opted to focus on the writer's view of users' actions—both what is noticed and how it is interpreted. Typically, usability studies have examined the interaction between texts/systems and readers/users (see McDonald & Schvaneveldt, 1988; Ramey, 1988; Rubens & Rubens, 1988), subordinating the important variable of how the writer interprets and uses results. Although both Sullivan (March, 1985) and Schriver (1987) suggest that writers can be trained to successfully use user information in revising documents they do not author, usability studies still have not examined how writers view the findings from usability studies run on their own work.
Our study examines how, and to what degree, one writer's rhetorical orientation filters results from usability tests.
what is his rhetorical orientation?
what value does he place on, and how does he classify and apply, usability test information?

References

[1]
Atlas, M. (1981), The user edit: Making manuals easier to use. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC 24, 28-29.
[2]
Dieli, M. (1989). The usability process: Working with iterative design principles. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 32(4), 272-278.
[3]
Kinross, R. (1989). The rhetoric of neutrality. In V. Margolin (ed.), Design discourse: History, theory, criticism (pp. 131-143). Chicago: The U of Chicago P.
[4]
McDonald, J. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1988). The application of user knowledge to interface design. In R. Guindon (ed.), Cognitive science and its applications for human-computer interaction (pp. 289- 338). Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.
[5]
Miller, C. R. (1989). What's practical about technical writing? In B. E. Fearing & W. K. Sparrow (eds.), Technical writing: Theory and practice (pp. 14-24). New York: MLA.
[6]
Porter, J. E. (1989). Assessing readers' use of computer documentation: A pilot study. Technical Communication, 36(4), 422-423.
[7]
Porter, J. E., & Sullivan, P. A. (in press). Repetition and the rhetoric of visual design. In B. Johnstone (ed.), Repetition in discourse: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
[8]
Ramey, J. (1988). How people use computer documentation: Implications for book design. In S. Doheny-Farina (ed.), Effective documentation: What we have learned from research (pp. 143-158). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[9]
Rubens, P., & Rubens, B. K. (1988). Usability and format design. In S. Doheny-Farina (ed.), Effective documentation: What we have learned from research (pp. 213-233). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[10]
Schriver, K. A. (1987). Teaching writers to anticipate the reader's needs: Empirically based instruction. Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University.
[11]
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
[12]
Sullivan, P.A. (1989). Beyond a narrow conception of usability testing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 32(4), 256-264.
[13]
Sullivan, P. A. (March, 1985). Incorporating user feedback into technical manuals. Paper presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Minneapolis, MN.
[14]
Sullivan, P. A., & Porter, J. E. (1990). User testing: The heuristic advantages at the draft stage. Technical Communication, 37(1), 78-80.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGDOC '90: Proceedings of the 8th annual international conference on Systems documentation
September 1990
166 pages
ISBN:0897914147
DOI:10.1145/97426
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 September 1990

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Article

Conference

SIGDOC90
Sponsor:
SIGDOC90: 8th Annual Conference on Systems Documentation
October 31 - November 2, 1990
Arkansas, Little Rock, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 355 of 582 submissions, 61%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)49
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)15
Reflects downloads up to 04 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media