xml-dev - Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?

[James Robertson <jamesr@steptwo.com.au>]

At 23:51 12/10/2000, Rick JELLIFFE wrote:

>Linda van den Brink wrote:
>
> > Whereas a tech writer, who is inside
> > the organization, would presumably have good communication lines to the
> > editors of specs and could ask them 'what is meant here' and THEN come up
> > with a good rewrite.
>
>So would people be happier with
>   * a much more comprehensive Primer
>   * splitting the Structures draft into two or three parts that were
>more
>      self contained
>   * a much terser algorithmic/logical treatment of the subject, less
>      comprehensible to Joe Database but smaller and more precise
>   * a rewrite of structures based on the concrete syntax rather than
>       having the abstract components first
>
>Knowing some specifics might be helpful.

Documents have "usability" issues
in the same way as online interfaces.

Is it therefore not sensible to do
"usability testing" (involving real users)
on documents?

Really, this list (with all it's best
intentions) can solve this problem.

What we need is some real research,
followed by practical problem solving,
involving a representative sample of
actual users.

(I haven't just made this idea up: have
a look at many of the respected usability
books for a discussion of these concepts.)

J




-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution

http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr@steptwo.com.au