gray@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM (Bill Gray x2128) (11/18/90)
Sorry for this clumsy followup, but the reply and followup options on our local copy of rn are kaput. (We'll get it fixed Real Soon Now. :-) >From: mm@praxis.co.uk (Michael Mannion) >Subject: Designing Online Documents >Message-ID: <5514@newton.praxis.co.uk> >Date: 14 Nov 90 16:41:48 GMT >Sender: mm@praxis.co.uk > Mike asks four good questions relating to converting an existing paper book to an online document. We are moving towards increasing online documentation here, too. We're also looking into distributing our traditional paper doc on CD-ROM. In addition to Mike Mannion's questions, may I add the following? 5.) Can anyone suggest "essential" reading in online doc design? 6.) Do users prefer online doc to paper doc? Perhaps more to the point, do all classes of users have a preference, and is it the same? For example, do programmers prefer paper while data entry personnel prefer online doc? What studies exist to indicate preference by user task? I'm glad Mike started this thread. Conversion of documentation on a large scale is a decidedly nontrivial task from any perspective. It bears some discussion. -- : gray@rsvl.unisys.com : "There are four kinds of : : : homicide: felonious, excusable, : : Unisys has enough problems without being : justifiable, and praiseworthy." : : blamed for my personal opinions. : --Ambrose Bierce :
mark@motown.altair.fr (Mark James) (11/20/90)
In article <5514@newton.praxis.co.uk> mm@praxis.co.uk (Michael Mannion) writes: >1. Given a large paper technical reference manual which is suited to >beig online and which is already word-processed, is it better to start >from scratch and re-design the document into hypertext format or would >it be better to take what exists and `mould' it into hypertext format? The short answer is that it is always better to design something from the beginning for a specific purpose than to retrofit it later. The real answer, though, is that you (and/or your company) can probably find better uses for your time than to recast existing documentation. >2. If we can make the distinction between the hypertext `design' and >its subsequent `implementation' how can we describe the design so that >it could be formally reviewed. Unless I miss my guess, the reviewing body is likely to know nothing about hypertext, except maybe that it facilitates cross-reference lookups. Stress the simple advantages, like information at your fingertips, automatic indices, easy updating of content (unless this is not true for your implementation); if you can work anything interactive into the bargain, you get double the brownie points. Don't go into object-oriented philosophy unless you're sure that your reviewer won't turn off. Above all, don't make it look too much like fun; this may be essential for the end-user, but it's poison for a reviewer (-;). >3. Does anyone have a feel for how long it takes to put a paper >document, book online? My experience is limited to software reference manuals, but my rule of thumb is to take your honest, gut-felt worst-case scenario and multiply by two to three. >4. Does anyone have any experience of hypertext design teams working >on the same document and could offer useful advice? The fewer the number of hands actually doing the conversion, the quicker the job gets done. Use your programming resources to build tools to automate the tedious tasks (finding and collating the \ref and \index commands in a LaTeX document, for example); use your literary geniuses to rewrite the turgid or incomplete parts; and be careful who you let decide where the buttons go. In article <40@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM> gray@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM (Bill Gray x2128) continues: >5.) Can anyone suggest "essential" reading in online doc design? There's lots of crap on this topic, but Horton's _Designing and Writing Online Documentation_ is good. >6.) Do users prefer online doc to paper doc? Perhaps more to the point, > do all classes of users have a preference, and is it the same? For > example, do programmers prefer paper while data entry personnel prefer > online doc? What studies exist to indicate preference by user task? I don't know of any studies, but you have raised an important point. Hypertext programmers (and authors of articles thereon) often tend to assume that everyone is dying for the stuff, since it's flashy and has buttons; it's supposed to give non-computer-literate people access to computer documentation. In fact there is one fundamental problem with hypertext, and with the whole concept of replacing paper documentation with it: You need a computer to use it. This means: o You can't take it with you (unless you have a portable 386 (minimum) with a modem plugged into a cellular telephone, and a porter to carry it for you). o You can't read it for long without eyestrain. In other words hypertext is fine for quick reference, but not for learning concepts or other long-term study activities. Programmers might not mind being tied down to a screen all day long, but lots of end users resent it. Their work rhythms involve occasional changes of scenery or at least of seat position (in fact RSI doctors and labor unions insist on it), and the need to look something up in a reference book provides an acceptable reason. In this context, hypertext is sometimes perceived as a further mechanization of the workplace. The hypertext designer must bear this in mind: Its purpose is to facilitate the rapid search of information, and not to butt in where rapidity is not desired. -- === T. Mark James ==== All opinions, errors etc are my own. === mark@bdblues.altair.fr ==== "Hardware is that part of a computer === +33 (1) 39 63 53 93 ==== system that you can kick." ================================ -- Grace Hopper
fozzard@alumni.colorado.edu (Richard Fozzard) (11/22/90)
In article <40@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM> gray@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM (Bill Gray x2128) writes: > >6.) Do users prefer online doc to paper doc? Perhaps more to the point, > do all classes of users have a preference, and is it the same? For > example, do programmers prefer paper while data entry personnel prefer > online doc? What studies exist to indicate preference by user task? > Nielsen [1] has a good review of studies done comparing paper and online or hypertext docs. What follows is a summary of that section of his book. He mentions a study by Shneiderman [2] comparing a Hyperties and a paper version of a set of historical articles. Hypertext was marginally worse than paper. Nielsen himself did a study [3] comparing online and paper versions of manuals, textbooks, and fiction. Predicatably, online manuals were liked, fiction wasn't. Marchionini [4] compared use of the electronic and paper versions of an encyclopedia. People preferred the electronic version and thought they were faster using it (actually, they were slower). Egan [5,6] compared a statistics book in hypertext and print. Both quality and speed of work were better with the hypertext. Highlighting of search terms was considered a significant reason for this. Catano [7] taught poetry using FRESS and traditional paper materials. The study was inconclusive. Nielsen and Lyngbaek [8] evaluated a document in Guide, prefering the pop-up note and in-line expansion buttons to the link (reference) buttons. That same study found 33% of users complaining that a computer was not as convenient to use as paper. Baird [9] observed use of a hypertext travel guide and found that a huge majority of unsolicited users came from the under-20 age group, while this group was a small minority of those who had access to the system. Brown [10] compared the use of a Guide-based fault-diagnosis system by tech support professionals with a paper system. The hypertext system showed a 88% correct call handling compared to 68% for paper. The hypertext improved to 92% after 6 weeks of use. Well, the vote's not all in, but it seems that things are encouraging enough that there is some merit to hypertext after all. Draw your own conclusions! rich [1] Jakob Nielsen, Hypertext and Hypermedia, Academic Press, 1990 p152-157 [2] Shneiderman, B., "Reflections on authoring, editing, and managing hypertext", in Barrett, E. (ed.), The Society of Text, MIT Press, 1989, p115-131 [3] Nielsen, J., "Online documentation and reader annotation", Proc. 1st Conf. Work with Display Units (Stockholm, Sweden 12-15 May, 1986) pp 526-529 [4] Marchionini, G., "Making the transition from print to electronic encyclopedia: Adaptation of mental models", Int J Man-Machine Studies 30, 6 (June 1989) pp 591-618 [5] Egan, DE, et al, "Aquiring information in books and Superbooks", Proc. Annual Mtg American Educ Research Assoc., (San Francisco, March 1989) [6] Egan, DE, et al, "Behavioral evaluation and analysis of a hypertext browser", Proc. ACM CHI 89 Conf Human Factors in Computing Systems, (Austin, May 1989) pp 205-210 [7] Catano, JV, "Poetry and computers: Experimenting with the communal text", Computers and the Humanities 13 (1979) pp 269-275 [8] Nielsen, J, and Lyngbaek, U, "Two field studies of hypermedia usability", in Green, C, and McAleese, R (eds.) Hypertext: Theory into Practice II, INTELLECT Press, 1990 [9] Baird, P, et al, "Cognitive aspects of constructing non-linear documents: HyperCard and Glasgow Online", Proc. Online Information 88 (London, Dec 1988) pp 207-218 [10] Brown, PJ, "Hypertext: Dreams and reality", Proc. Hypermedia / Hypertext and Object-Oriented Databases Seminar (Brunel Univ., London, Dec 1989) -- ======================================================================== Richard Fozzard "Serendipity empowers" Univ of Colorado/CIRES/NOAA R/E/FS 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu (303)497-6011 or 444-3168
mtr@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Mary T Reina) (11/22/90)
Hey there!
First time caller here and I am in need. I am doing a research paper for a
graduate course and I've kinda picked a topic in which I am afraid may not
even exist. So I am asking you good people to give me some direction.
Here's my idea:
Vannevar Bush's idea of the memex machine made me think that the ultimate
linking of nodes could possibly be done through the complex networking
in which we are on right now, i.e. I want to link to one
document within another document in a hypertext system or
pool of information
located on the other side of the country or world. Is this a just a
notion or is this type of linking being done or at least researched...
how about discussed?
Would it be possible to link to nodes via electronic mail
or communication system? Any ideas?
Am I way off base here? Is this idea crazy to even consider for a
research paper?
I would appreciate any comments...either posted of sent directly to me.
Thank you,
Mary hamilton@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Doug Hamilton) (11/24/90)
In article <63270@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, mtr@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Mary T Reina) writes... > > Hey there! > >First time caller here and I am in need. I am doing a research paper for a >graduate course and I've kinda picked a topic in which I am afraid may not >even exist. So I am asking you good people to give me some direction. > >Here's my idea: > > Vannevar Bush's idea of the memex machine made me think that the ultimate > linking of nodes could possibly be done through the complex networking > in which we are on right now, i.e. I want to link to one > document within another document in a hypertext system or > pool of information > > located on the other side of the country or world. Is this a just a > > notion or is this type of linking being done or at least researched... > how about discussed? >Mary Ted Nelson's Xanadu dreams are reportedly close to a first concrete, commercial incarnation. Xanadu work is occuring at Autodesk (the folks who bring you AutoCad and Autodesk Anamator). Recent articles to give you a background on this in Byte (Sept 1990, p298) and PC-Computing (October, 1990). Contact Xanadu Operating Company via Autodesk @ 415-332-2344. Autodeak 2320 Marinship Way Sausalito, CA 94965 d. ...........hamilton@VMS.MACC.WISC.EDU or hamilton@WISCMACC ............Douglas Hamilton, Instructional Technology Support ............Academic Computing Center, University of Wisconsin ....................1210 West Dayton, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 ..............................(608) 262-5667 or (608) 262-0626