A comparative evaluation of two user guides—the document traditionally used by a company and a model document designed on the basis of research results and recommendations—was carried out using a number of complementary approaches focusing on the user. The quality and suitability of these documents for the target audience were assessed in terms of content, structure, presence of certain organizational devices (such as headings) and pictures included. The results revealed that the model document was more attractive, more efficient, and better adapted to users' needs, thanks to its modular organization (being structured according to “functions”), a large number of pictures, the presence of headings, and rationalization of the vocabulary used.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarrollJ. M. and MackR. L., Learning to Use a Word Processor: By Doing, By Thinking, and By Knowing, in Human Factors in Computer Systems, ThomasJ. C. and SchneiderM. L. (eds.), Ablex Publishing, Norwood, New Jersey, pp. 13–51, 1984.
2.
WrightP. and BarnardP., Just Fill in This Form: A Review for Designers, Applied Ergonomics, 6: 4, pp. 213–220, 1975.
3.
GanierF., L'analyse des fonctionnements cognitifs: Un support a l'amélioration de la conception des documents procéduraux [Cognitive processing analysis: An aid to the improvement of the design of procedural documents], Psychologie Française, 47: 1, pp. 53–64, 2002.
4.
GanierF., Factors Affecting the Processing of Procedural Instructions: Implications for Document Design, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47: 1, pp. 15–26, 2004.
5.
WrightP. and WilcoxP., Following Instructions: An Exploratory Trisection of Imperatives, in Studies in the Perception of Language, LeveltW. J. and d'ArcaisFlorais G. B. (eds.), Wiley & Sons, Chichester, New York, pp. 129–153, 1978.
6.
VermerschP., Données d'observation sur l'utilisation d'une consigne écrite: L'atomisation de l'action [Observed data about the use of written instructions: The action atomization], Le Travail Humain, 48: 2, pp. 161–172, 1985.
7.
DugganG. B. and PayneS. J., Interleaving Reading and Acting While Following Procedural Instructions, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7: 4, pp. 297–307, 2001.
8.
HartleyJ. and TruemanM., A Research Strategy for Text Designers: The Role of Headings, Instructional Science, 14: 2, pp. 99–155, 1985.
9.
WrightP., Presenting Technical Information: A Survey of Research Findings, Instructional Science, 6, pp. 93–134, 1977.
10.
HeurleyL., Traitement de textes procéduraux: Etude de psycholinguistique cognitive des processus de production et de compréhension chez des adultes non experts [The processing of procedural texts: A psycholinguistics study of production and comprehension processes in non expert adults], unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université de Bourgogne, Dijon, France, 1994.
11.
NewcastleH., Children's Problems with Written Directions, The Reading Teacher, 28, pp. 292–294, 1974.
12.
GuespinL., “Langue technique” et “langue de l'utilisateur”: Problémes de terminologie [“Technical language” and “User's language”: Problems of terminology], in Les mots pour le faire: Conception des modes d'emploi [Words to act: The design of instructions for use], BoullierD. (ed.), Association Descartes, Paris, pp. 211–225, 1992.
13.
GlenbergA. M. and LangstonW. E., Comprehension of Illustrated Text: Pictures Help to Build Mental Models, Journal of Memory and Language, 31: 2, pp. 129–151, 1992.
14.
BooherH. R., Relative Comprehensibility of Pictorial Information and Printed Words in Proceduralized Instructions, Human Factors, 17: 3, pp. 266–277, 1975.
15.
MorrellR. W. and ParkD. C., The Effects of Age, Illustrations, and Task Variables on the Performance of Procedural Assembly Tasks, Psychology and Aging, 8: 3, pp. 389–399, 1993.
16.
GanierF., Processing Text and Pictures in Procedural Instructions, Information Design Journal, 10: 2, pp. 146–153, 2000/2001.
17.
SchumacherG. M. and WallerR., Testing Design Alternatives: A Comparison of Procedures, in Designing Usable Texts, DuffyT. M. and WallerR. (eds.), Academic Press Inc., London, pp. 377–403, 1985.
18.
HartleyJ., Designing Instructional Text (3rd Edition), Kogan Page, London, 1994.
19.
HartleyJ., Is this Chapter Any Use? Methods for Evaluating Text, in Evaluation of Human Work, WilsonJ. R. and CorlettNigel E. (eds.), Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 285–309, 1995.
20.
DuffyT. M.CurranT. E., and SassD., Document Design for technical Job Tasks: An Evaluation, Human Factors, 25: 2, pp. 143–160, 1983.
21.
ISO/IEC, Guide 37: Instructions d'emploi pour les produits présentant un intérêt pour les consommateurs [Instructions for use of products of consumer interest], ISO/IEC, 1995.
22.
Department of Trade and Industry, Instructions for Consumer Products. Guidelines for Better Instructions and Safety Information for Consumer Products, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1988.
23.
HartleyJ., Can You Read This? Tools for Evaluating Text, in The Applied Psychologist, HartleyJ. and BranthwaiteA. (eds.), Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 113–125, 2000.
24.
WrightP., Writing to Be Understood: Why Use Sentences?Applied Ergonomics, 2: 4, pp. 207–209, 1971.
25.
WrightP. and FoxK., Presenting Information in Tables, Applied Ergonomics1: 4, pp. 234–242, 1970.
26.
WrightP., Writing Technical Information, in Review of Research in Education, 14, RothkopfE. Z. (ed.), American Educational Research Association, pp. 327–385, 1987.
27.
WrightP., Issues of Content and Presentation in Document Design, in Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, HelanderM. (ed.), Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, North Holland, pp. 629–652, 1988.
28.
WrightP., Communicating with the User, in Designing End-User Interfaces, HeatonN. and SinclairM. (eds.), Pergamon Infotech Limited, Maidenhead, Berks, pp. 123–129, 1988.
29.
McClellandI., Product Assessment and User Trials, in Evaluation of Human Work, WilsonJ. R. and CorlettNigel E. (eds.), Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 249–284, 1995.
30.
KomoskiP. K. and WoodwardA., The Continuing Need for Learner Verification and Revision of Textual Materials, in The Technology of Text, Vol. 2., JonassenD. H. (ed.), Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 396–417, 1985.
31.
WallerR., Designing a Government Form: A Case History, Information Design Journal, 4: 1, pp. 36–57, 1984.
32.
SchriverK. A., Evaluating Text Quality: The Continuum from Text-Focused to Reader-Focused Methods, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 32: 4, pp. 238–255, 1989.
33.
GanierF. and BarcenillaJ. (in press). Considering Users and the Way they Use Procedural Texts: Some Prerequisite for the design of appropriate documents, in Improving the Production and Understanding of Written Documents in the Workplace, AlamargotD.TerrierP., and CellierJ.-M. (eds.), Amsterdam, Elsevier.
34.
GanierF.Factors Affecting the Processing of Procedural Instructions: Implications for Document Design, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47: 1, pp. 15–26, 2004.
35.
GanierF.Evaluer l'efficacité des documents technique procéduraux: Un Panorama des méthodes [Evaluating the Efficiency of Technical Documents: A Panoramic view], Le Travail Humain, 65: 1, pp. 1–27, 2002.
36.
GanierF.Processing Text and Pictures in Procedural Instructions, Information Design Journal, 10: 2, pp. 146–153, 2000/2001.
