Comments on: What Users Don’t Care About

By: Weekly links roundup by Communications from DMN

Weekly links roundup by Communications from DMN — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:32:51 +0000

[...] Tom Johnson discusses what users don’t care about [...]

By: Another look at Miriam’s original point « Innovators Wanted

Another look at Miriam’s original point « Innovators Wanted — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:26:42 +0000

[...] look at Miriam’s original point Tom Johnson’s article http://www.idratherbewriting.com/2009/07/11/what-users-dont-care-about/ follows exactly on the point that Miriam made many moons ago. The article is great and the comments [...]

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:34:22 +0000

Larry, excellent comment. I completely agree. In all the buzz, the focus on process has dominated the discussion, while questions of user value have been downplayed.

By: Larry Kollar

Larry Kollar — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:16:24 +0000

Exactly! The users don’t care. We keep churning out the same ol’ same ol’, we just do it faster these days — perhaps we should start focusing on what we actually deliver and let the buzzwords (DITA, XML, DocBook, content management, single-sourcing, etc.) take care of themselves.

By: Jeff Coatsworth

Jeff Coatsworth — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:50:55 +0000

@Milan Some of our users have expressed this desire; but mostly it comes from management’s attempts at refreshing the look of our package. Content quality and accuracy is important to them, but appearance really drives things…

By: Noz

Noz — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:10:50 +0000

THANK YOU, Tom, for raising this. I am quite fervent about the ‘So f***ing what?’ angle on XML (or DITA) at the moment!
We offer our clients solutions regarding solution media and XML, and push them to think about ‘value’ and ‘ROI’ not only as % saved, but as user experience increases. When collaboration platforms (which is what I think social media in the business world constitutes) become synonymous with (to the point of replacing) traditional publishing channels, then information assets are consumed, monitored and improved in a wholly new way. You brings users into the content, into dialogues in it and around it, which engage them infinitely more than a really accurate, really fast and consistent manual ever, ever will.
But people STILL DON’T GET WHAT XML IS ALL ABOUT.
I think that in fact the rift between those that understand XML and those that don’t not only still exists but is getting larger and larger. Answering the ‘So what?’ question is vital to continuing the understanding that the market has on XML content.
You said, “This is perhaps the flaw of DITA: no noticeable increase in value in the deliverable.” Therein lies the rub. I had a client saying to me just last week, and I quote, “The fundamental problem with XML is that the documents are too large and can’t be subdivided”. To illustrate the problem with both these type of conclusions I’ll simply apply it to another better understood technology:
“The problem with content in databases is that it’s inflexible, slow to access and requires expensive software to store it.”
This may be true of many databases, but it is a function of the implementations, NOT the technology. XML and DITA do not have the flaws stated in any way, it is that most solution buyers have only the vision to get the most basic solutions off the ground. Really doing something interesting in DITA means deeply re-thinking your content structures and delivery methods. Most solutions are in there to save a buck, not to actually improve anything.
I look forward to 2010 because I think it’s the year the wider market will start to see the ‘2nd gen’ DITA solutions that begin scratch the surface of what new *functionality* these technologies can deliver when properly applied.

By: Ellis Pratt

Ellis Pratt — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:44:01 +0000

I think the Mail article indirectly refers to the study. There was a piece on the BBC web site, but I couldn’t find it. It didn’t appear to be a serious scientific survey – more something that would generate some column inches for the Tech Guys’s services.

By: Richard L. Hamilton

Richard L. Hamilton — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:00:59 +0000

Tom,

Interesting article. Regarding my book, I agree that readers don’t directly care how I wrote the book (though, writing it while eating plum pastries in Italy is a lot nicer than my actual work environment). But, they may indirectly care if the technology allows me to lower the book’s price, give them more or better content, or provide the content in a more usable form.

In the end, innovation will come from at least two angles: productivity improvements that customers only see indirectly and new ways of engaging customers. Both have their place, though I think our profession has emphasized the former over the latter, sometimes to the extent of going backwards to become more “productive.” Just recently I heard that a well-known, large corporation is planning to stop offering html-based docs for a major product and just dump pdfs on their website; that might be a short term productivity gain, but it’s a big step backwards for the customer.

I would like to see more of the kinds of innovations that Anne Gentle speaks about in her reply above. Things that take a new look at how we can engage our customers in a way that enhances their productivity using our products and services. The good news is that this idea does seem to be in the air these days, and I think we’re at the beginning of a sea change in the way we work.

By: Milan Davidovic

Milan Davidovic — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:25:37 +0000

@Jeff re: “users want to see content presented in new formats”; did this come from actual conversations with your users?

By: Jeff Coatsworth

Jeff Coatsworth — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:23:16 +0000

Quote “Part of the problem in our attempt to demonstrate value is that our help deliverables look the same as they did 15 years ago, more or less. Online help and a PDF manual. It’s not a format that engages users.”

I totally agree Tom – our company is just now making the transition from PDF online manuals (that nobody liked) to some other format. My first attempt at a “new” format was a .CHM – that instantly got a thumbs-down from management because it “looked old-fashioned.” My next option has been to generate WebHelp – that may fly, but it still relies on “old” technology.

Users want to see content presented in “new” formats, but software developers haven’t really come up with any new help product formats that technical communicators can use. No wonder we’re perceived as yesterday’s news!