Update: Links to all session slides and recordings are grouped here.
I’ve been a technical communicator for nigh on 20 years. I teach technical communications. I theorize about technical communications. And for all this time, I have steadfastly held to the great rule that you do not mix concepts with tasks.
DITA has three major topic types. Two of them are Concept and Task. Why? To keep them separate, of course – everyone knows that!
And yet – and yet – and yet – here I am, telling you that “everything we know is wrong.”
Why am I saying this? Because in today’s information environment, in today’s world of intelligent, adaptive, responsive, mobile applications, you need more than procedures to know how to use software. You need to know:
- Is it really interesting for me to do this – i.e., will it help me solve my problem, or get my work done, NOW?
- Once I learn this procedure, can I do other procedures without having to learn them, too?
In other words, we need to learn to use and understand our applications on a very different level from even a few years ago. We need to embed concepts in our procedures so that once you learn one, you can generalize to others.
It turns out, that cognitive theoreticians, including John Carroll, the father of minimalism, knew this. Our colleagues in training know it. Why don’t we? Why aren’t we leveraging what cognitive scientists have learned about learning as part of our user assistance?
Update: Some of these questions were treated in my webinar series, sponsored by Adobe, A Cognitive Design for User Assistance.
- The first session, on January 15, covered how users have become learners and showed some real world attempts to deal with that. You can watch the recording here.
- The second session, on January 29, covered user assistance as a learning experience meant to empower users through the acquisition of basic concepts, with examples of how to use DITA topics to do this. Watch the recording here
- The third session, February 4, dealt with how results of collective know-how from crowd sourcing, social media and related techniques can be used to create learning materials that are, themselves, circulated to widen the community. Watch the recording here
I’m looking forward to your webinar series, Ray, especially because from what I understand so far, I think I may disagree with you…
I think *contextual* information very much has a place inside task topics – but I don’t think that it preempts a complete concept topic which is justified in its own right. Also, I find that the separation of concepts and tasks helps me to efficiently maintain my documentation, because Individual tasks tend to change faster than the underlying concepts.
But I will pay close attention, because I can be sure to learn a lot from you!
Hi Kai,
with all due respect, we are not here to help ourselves do documentation more easily. We are here to help the user do her or his task more quickly and easily. John Carroll knew that you learn by doing. Many folks have misinterpreted him to mean you don’t need concepts at all, even – not true.
The big question is, “how much concept do you need?” – stay tuned.
Hey – you didn’t argue with me at TCUK when I suggested this! We could have had some good fun!
I’m not out to make it easy on me – but I do need to figure out how to give my customers the most bang for the buck my employer shells out. And efficient maintenance is a secondary concern to the primary one you mention.
Oh, and I think we had plenty fun at TCUK – or so I seem to remember…
“we are not here to help ourselves do documentation more easily. We are here to help the user do her or his task more quickly and easily.”
Ease of production and quality of output shouldn’t be in competition. I’ve seen a lot of scenarios where production delay creates a disparity between the documentation and the reality documented that’s more harmful than the marginal improvement that the longer production time buys. It’s that old “perfect is the enemy of good” thing. If anything, ease of production should enable better documentation, not worse.
Welcome to the league of tech comm heretics, Ray. I’ve been ranting about the tyranny of the terrible troika for a long time now. (http://everypageispageone.com/2012/07/28/the-tyranny-of-the-terrible-troika-rethinking-concept-task-and-reference/)
I think this mistake that tech comm has made here is to mistake an analytic truth (task, concept, and reference, are useful divisions of information types for analytical purposes) with a synthetic idea (task, concept, and reference material should be presented separately.
This was certainly not the idea in information mapping, from which the idea of information typing entered tech comm. Information mapping was about how to put different information types together to create an effective document. Somewhere along to way, though, this synthetic truth got lost and tech comm started separating concept and task, for no better reason than that they were different types of information.
It definitely time to challenge this unfortunate practice.
Mark, from your comments above, I think I’m in good company
Pingback: Confusing Analytic and Synthetic Truths in Defining Topic Types - Every Page is Page One
Ray, Thanks for the thoughtful, thought-provoking read. And Mark, I’m with you that the “mistake that tech comm has made is to mistake an analytic truth (task, concept, and reference are useful divisions of information types for analytical purposes) with a synthetic idea (task, concept, and reference material should be presented separately.”
A yarn metaphor comes to mind. Information typing helps writers untangle concept, task, and reference material. But untangling isn’t the goal. It just shows you what you have to knit with.
Pingback: Webinar: Cognitive Design for User Assistance Series
Pingback: DITA: Similarly Unique/Uniquely Similar | DITA Chicks Blog
Pingback: Lost in the Meme Field of Good and Evil | Rant of a Humanist Nerd
I just thought that I’d tell you that I love your evolution image on your home screen. That’s great. I’m taking a doctoral course on technology’s influence on and interaction with society and culture, and that illustration fits the course just perfectly.
Thanks – I’ve been rather fond of this image for some time, even though it’s been used, even overused, quite a lot. I think it hits a certain nail right on the head.