How Google Does Help
June 27th, 2009 | Posted in Screencasting, Technical Writing, Web 2.0 7 Comments »
With all the talk about latest trends and avoiding extinction as communicators, and integrating web 2.0 and wikis, blogs, podcasts, and other interactive social media into help, it’s a good time to look at how Google — practically the leader of the web — does help.
Last week Google released Google Voice, a service that allows you to integrate all your phones into one number and includes a host of features, including voice mail, recording, conference calling, and other services.
To help users get started, Google Voice has a list of 20 short videos. Only the overview video contains animation. It’s certainly the video they’ve put the most work into, and it also functions as marketing collateral.
The other videos are fairly simple, with short looping background music, professional voice talent, and a read script. The defining quality is that each video is short, some as short as 25 seconds.
The videos aren’t integrated with the text help. So if you don’t feel like watching videos, you can’t easily read the same topic. Google Voice does have help text, but it’s on another page, only linked to from the videos with a tiny, hardly noticeable help link in the footer. It’s almost like one group produced text, another produced help, and they published them independently.
The video windows are small, under 500×500 pixels. The small video window allow you to easily move from one video to the next without losing your place in the site. If you click outside of the window, the window doesn’t automatically minimize, which is nice. You have to close the pop-up window to go back to the list of videos.
All the videos are pulled in from Youtube, so they’re shareable. After one video ends, you see a list of related videos, but the related videos aren’t other Google Voice videos. Instead they are other Google services. So the related videos somewhat fail if you’re trying to learn more about Google Voice.
You can’t comment on the videos, or upload your own, or do anything other than watch them. Unlike the Michael Pick videos on WordPress.tv, Google’s videos are somewhat boring. Except for the overview video, which contains an animated stick figure, they lack a sense of being cool. They feel a bit corporate.
Similar to the length of the videos, the help content is also short and to the point, but the help topics are too text-heavy, with almost no illustrations, diagrams, or screenshots. The pages are embedded on the web, and navigating the topics is somewhat tedious. A search field appears at the top of the help, but if you search for the word “videos,” nothing appears.
Glaringly absent is any printable manual. You can print a single page, but not a group of pages in a PDF manual format. Additionally, Google does not provide any kind of quick reference guide to get started.
You can’t comment below the help topics, but there is a forum. The forum allows you to be notified by email and see the most popular discussions. You can also read a Google Voice blog, but the blog, like the help and the videos, isn’t well integrated with the rest of the help materials. It somewhat lives on its own. Google’s blog also takes the backward position of disallowing comments and only allows linkbacks to the posts.
One interesting characteristic of Google Voice help is a lack of parallelism in the topics. Here’s a list of video topics:
- Call screening – Announce and screen callers
- Listen in – Listen before taking a call
- Block calls – Keep unwanted callers at bay
- SMS – Send, receive, and store SMS
- Place calls – Call US numbers for free
- Taking calls – Answer on any of your phones
- Phone routing – Phones ring based on who calls
- Forwarding phones – Add phones and decide which ring
The help topic titles are similarly unparallel. Usually help contains all verbs or nouns in a more parallel list.
My Analysis
Google puts a lot of effort in the overview video. That’s a smart move. When people want to learn about Google Voice, the overview video communicates the service in a catchy way, with more of Google’s branding. This video is probably watched thousands of times (a lot more than any other video), so it makes sense to go to the effort of including animation.
What I don’t like about Google’s help is the lack of integration between the video and help content. Not every topic deserves a video. Many times I’d rather read the help. And sometimes I’d rather watch a video. Separating the two formats so strongly is a poor usability move. The forum and blog also need to be more closely integrated with the other help materials.
Additionally, the lack of any printed manual makes me think Google has no single sourcing strategy. The help content is probably just written as regular text on each page. I would have appreciated the opportunity to print a quick reference guide or short manual, only because reading on the web is a nonlinear experience, and moving from one topic to another without any logical sequence can be tiring.
I also think Google chose the wrong voice for its videos. Google is playful, young, and irreverent. But the voice they chose is professional, corporate, scripted, and somewhat ordinary.
I’ve been thinking a lot about voice in videos. Professional voice talent is not necessarily engaging. It sounds professional, but a professional voice isn’t always what users want, even if it’s what they expect. Users want a voice that is friendly, engaging, conversational, and real. I wouldn’t even mind it to be a bit spontaneous.
Tags: Google, help, usability, video tutorials, videos
Twitter
Facebook












Hey Tom,
Great post.
Seems strange that they would be so inconsistent. I would say it’s may actually be a part of their strategy.
Did you ever see the Google Chrome comic (http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/). I recently had a discussion with my team about this, and we decided such a thing works well for them as an overview/intro type of thing.
Similarily, I think you have concluded their Voice help – intro is neat, and eye-catching while the rest is sort of unrelated and secondary.
Plus, it’s all on-line, not really printer friendly.
Do the apps’ usability make up for that?
Cheers,
A.
[...] Google does help – http://is.gd/1gYfw [...]
if only their were more quality websites like yours on the internet, please keep up the good work.
This is very much in the style of the CommonCraft videos. CommonCraft has created a number of videos for various applications (such as on Twitter and on wikis). I think CommonCraft’s Lee LeFever has written some articles on the strength and weaknesses of this approach – might be worth a look.
Google Voice documentation is very different from Chrome documentation which I wrote about last year.
I got my Google Voice number several few weeks ago and was going through Google Voice page to learn the basics. I also found it strange that all the videos are housed in the “About” page while text help is in a different location altogether (without any videos).
Also, previously, I didn’t think Google needed any documentation in print format because all its products are web-based. Most Google applications have intuitive UIs and are pretty user-friendly. Google’s online help systems are usually organized by topic/task, which I think is sufficient enough for most users. There’s really no need for a printed/linear manual.
However, after using Google Voice, I find that I keep forgetting which buttons and numbers to push to perform certain tasks. I have to go online to search the help system. It would be great if there was a printed quick reference guide that I can keep near the phone.
Susan, thanks for sharing your feedback and thoughts on Google’s help. It’s nice to see someone concur with some of my points. I think the quick reference guides for online apps should be a must-have deliverable for every app, no matter how seemingly simple. My father recently joined Twitter. After signing up, he said Now what? He wasn’t sure where to go. I can hardly believe that a service like that doesn’t have a clear quick reference guide. A tech writer who wanted to create volunteer quick reference guides to fill in the gaps could gain a lot of visibility doing this sort of thing.
I don’t think quick reference is necessary for all online apps. A quick reference guide for apps with more features and buttons is useful, but something like Twitter where there’s really only one or two things you do (write an update with less than 140 characters) really does not need a quick reference.
I tend to think of quick reference guides as a something that you refer to frequently when you can’t remember which keys or buttons or shortcuts to use. If a new user wants to learn to use something for the first time, I think short video tutorials (like what Google Voice and Chrome did) tend to be more effective (for quick starts) than a step-by-step procedural help, but that’s just my personal opinion.
If Twitter had a short video demoing how to use Twitter, that should be sufficient (again, my opinion). That’s not to stay that video tutorials should replace text-based documentation. There’s a need for both, but I do think that the general trend for providing more “useful” documentation, especially for online apps should be more contextualized rather than linear.
When Gmail changed how users can label their emails (drag and drop as if labels were “folders”), the first time I saw the change, I saw a text box that hovered over the labels explaining the change. It wasn’t annoying like a pop-up box and disappeared when I moved the mouse away. I never saw the context help box again, but I thought that was an interesting and effective way of showing me a new feature/change.