Readability/Usability/Quality 4-01 (December 2001) by Mike Starr

I have a theory about software documentation and tech support calls. It’s not supported by any research that I know of, but then, I haven’t bothered to check that, either. My theory is that customers will look for the information they need in their preferred type of documentation, whether it be print or online. If they don’t find what they need, their next step is to pick up the phone and call the tech support number without bothering to look at the other documentation form (even if it’s available). The current trend among technical communicators is a twisted form of minimalism that says the documentation should contain procedural documentation but little or no reference documentation. I believe that this trend is a disservice to our customers and tends to increase technical support costs because customers subjected to this form of documentation have little or no access to the information they need. If it’s not there, they can't find it. Now, this is pretty much off topic and doesn’t argue in favor of or against printed documentation. It only argues in favor of complete documentation. I just thought I’d throw that in here because there’s not enough for a separate article. I wanted you to think about that, too. Maybe one or more of you know something about this theory that I don’t. If you do, I’d be happy to hear from you about it.

 
I believe that we as technical communicators have an obligation (seldom part of our formal job descriptions) to be a strong advocate for policies that will benefit the users (our customers). One way we can fulfill that unwritten obligation is to argue in favor of comprehensive printed documentation. I believe that printed documentation is important and that many of the common arguments against it can be overcome. This article addresses several of the arguments I've heard against printed documentation:

• It’s too expensive to print a comprehensive user’s manual for the product; we can give the customer all the documentation on disk and it doesn’t cost us anything extra.
• Paper documentation becomes obsolete too quickly. If we give them online documentation, they can get the latest documentation readily.
• Nobody reads the manuals anyway.
• The demands of paper and online documentation are so disparate that they would require two completely separate writing projects.
• It’s what Microsoft does and they’re setting the industry standards; why should we do anything different?

 

It’s too expensive to print

I worked on a project once where I created a printed user’s manual that was in excess of 650 pages, perfect bound. Now, this was a real Cadillac of a user’s manual. I put everything in there that I could conceive of that the user might need or want and a few other things that I thought might be useful even though they weren’t requirements. I put in everything I would want in the user’s manual if I were the customer.

We ordered 10,000 copies at a time, and the cost of these manuals was approximately $6.50 each in that quantity. Now, I have to tell you things got a little tense in the accounting department when they got a bill in excess of $65,000 for printing. But, they weren’t seeing the big picture either. The product these manuals documented had an approximate street price of $1000. The cost of the manuals as a percentage of the income, then, was 0.65% (that's six-and-a-half tenths of a percent). And we reordered another 10,000 manuals after six months!!!

Shortly after the publication of this manual, I stumbled on a clipart collection that sold at retail for about $50 and included a 500-page book with all the clipart printed out. I would have to guess that their cost of publication for that 500-page book was roughly proportional to the cost of publishing our 650-page book, so I’d estimate that they were spending about $5.00 per book. Now, I ask you, if they could sell a $50 product with a book that cost them about $5.00 (10% of the retail price), why were we getting tense about the $6.50 per unit cost of printed manuals for our $1000 product??

You have to look at the big picture here. Sure, a $65,000 printing bill is huge, but how much income did we produce? Could we have put that same documentation online and saved $6.50 per unit? Sure we could have. But, we were making a good profit on the product and our customers (as well as our tech support staff) loved the manual. No need to be stingy. How do you feel when you open the package for a $1000 product that doesn't even have a manual? All you get is a CD-ROM that you know cost them about one dollar to manufacture.

 

Paper documentation becomes obsolete too quickly

Paper documentation does not become obsolete any faster than online documentation. The only difference is that there is some lead time built in for the paper products to arrive from the printer. Can online documentation be much more up to date? Sure it can, if it’s the only thing anybody is assigned to maintain. But if you do both online and printed documentation and maintain them, you should be able to keep the printed documentation just as up-to-date as the online documentation. With available print-on-demand processes, it's possible to print and ship a manual that's just as up-to-date as the online documentation.

 

Nobody reads the manuals anyway

To a certain extent, this may be true. How many times do you pick up a new software package and read the manual (if you’re fortunate enough to get one at all)? But, when you want some information about the product, it’s a good thing to have. There are people who would rather use a printed manual than an online help file (of course, there are also other people who would rather use an online help file than printed documentation).

Printed documentation has several advantages over online documentation:

• You can throw it in your briefcase and take it home.
• You can look at it without sacrificing onscreen real estate.
• You can stick a bookmark in between the pages and go right to the page you frequently need.
• You can highlight text that you find important.
• You can make notes on it.
• You don’t have to have the computer turned on to make it work; you don’t even have to have a computer!

 

It would require two separate writing projects.

One argument that has been made repeatedly is that the demands of paper and online documentation are so disparate that they would require two completely separate writing projects. They say "You just can’t make a help file out of a printed manual. You have to write it entirely differently." I suggest they’re wrong. Why? Because I’ve done it.

I maintain that if I do a thorough job when I create the printed documentation, it’s going to contain a paragraph or paragraphs that document each object in each dialog box, each item on each menu, and so on. That same printed documentation is also going to contain task-based documentation for the most common tasks (as identified by the subject matter experts, and me). And if I do it well, and organize it well, it’s going to be a simple task to convert it into a help file that gives complete reference information as well as what’s this help for every object in the product.

At the time I originally wrote this article, I wasn't aware of any products designed to facilitate "single-source" of printed and online documentation. I did it with Microsoft Word and ForeHelp and it took me very little time to convert my user's manuals from print to WinHelp. The process is even simpler now with the latest tools.

 

It’s what Microsoft does

There’s no question about it: that’s what Microsoft does. But the bigger question is: Do we have to do it too? I say no. Microsoft can get away with it; for all intents and purposes, they really don’t have any competition. Most of the rest of the world does. And when it comes to the little things about your product that make the difference in a purchase decision, documentation can be one of them. There’s nothing like going in to a major client who’s thinking about switching to your competitor and tossing a good sized manual on his/her desk and asking them to compare it to the skimpy manual (or pamphlet) that comes with your competitor’s product. And let’s face it: Microsoft is not a model of good documentation. The only times I’ve heard Microsoft and documentation mentioned in the same sentence, the references were not complimentary.

Take a look at the product reviews in the computer magazines. Documentation is one of the critical things they evaluate. It’s a real good thing to have a good write-up in one of those magazines and a comprehensive manual can help you get there. Of course, good documentation can’t make a lame product good, but it can be the difference between two otherwise equal products.

 

Conclusion

I think I’ve addressed most of the arguments I’ve heard against printed documentation. I strongly believe that users want quality, comprehensive printed documentation and that we as technical communicators should be advocates for it.  

"transline Deutschland - Übersetzungsdienst für technische Übersetzung"