Re: the ******* manuals

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Bill Laidley wrote:

> "Read the ******* manual" had it's origins as a reply to individuals asking
> questions that were clearly answered in the manual. The irony is that as
> software got bigger the manual also got bigger. And at a certain point people
> looked at the size of the manual - admittedly usually poorly indexed - and
> just couldn't be bothered to try to find the relevant section. Hence their
> questions and RTFM.

Hi Bill,

That wasn't this rant -- tho I'm quite sure that if the manual were better
written and ORGANIZED that reaction would not have obtained. If you want
to know a certain function (like "High Pass" or "red icon" it ought to be
possible to CHECK THE INDEX, if not with the first try, then with a varied
search, then turn to that section AND READ THE PERTINENT [note omission of
expletive] SECTION and have the question answered in terms a moderately
clued-in user could understand).

> Your particular interpretation "the ******* manual" is true of most books
> that try to teach a subject, be they manuals or text-books. The author must

I wasn't talking about "teaching a subject" -- nor, as I recall, was the
original question for a whole subject. I was talking about the fact that
EXACTLY because these programs have become so complex and full of wrinkles
on wrinkles, even someone who KNOWS the program (as I essentially, for
instance, know Photoshop) can't get that particular problem solved, or
find an answer to a particular question, odds are, by "reading the
manual." Partly because, even when the info is there, which it may be, the
INDEX is, um, let's say a ******* joke -- as two recent events I cited
illustrate.

To actually read, absorb & integrate a whole manual of this size takes
weeks (assuming time out for bodily functions) by which time your computer
is obsolete, your disk is full, your deadline is past, your significant
other(s) have moved on, and, since you haven't been earning anything
except raw nerves, you may be bankrupt.

I have in fact been reading computer manuals since 1984, and I GUARANTEE
that well beyond greater size and complexity today, there's been a sloppy,
clumsy, crude, slipshod deterioration. NOT just because of size and
complexity, which after all is relative -- most of us have a larger base
of knowledge to build on -- but because the operation doesn't matter much
to the company, which is going to sell its upgrades anyway (remember, it's
planned obsolescence, and they've got me captive -- if I want to use the
ramusframus with the 90 gazillion gigs, I need the upgrade for programs &
peripherals.... assuming there is one).

I didn't even mention the manual for Pagemaker 7, suffered recently. I was
making some PDFs & was told that PM 7 had a stronger PDF program than 6.5,
tho 6.5 had done everything I wanted to date, and beautifully -- and
INDESIGN is something for those sentenced to the hottest circle of hell,
like people who say "between you and I," or pull the wings off
butterflies. The first couple of Pagemaker manuals I got were splendid --
I learned the program and most of its talents -- even while riding the
exercise bicycle at my gym. The current manual I couldn't decipher (at
least not the new parts) in a padded cell. True, my mind may have slipped
in the interval, but not possibly that much...

For example the Read Me on the installation disk of Pagemaker 7 said the
"Distiller" was now the "Normalizer" and mentioned a couple of places
where the term "Distiller" remained. What it didn't mention was the
following dozens of references to "Distiller" and what the devil did that
name change mean? Anything? I figure it was simply a matter of branding,
that "Distiller" was, um Acrobat?, and they wanted to have their own.
Thanks a lot you miserable ******* SOBs. Short of a major research project
(and I have others with a higher priority & more prospects of success) I
haven't a clue what that "change" meant, or what it was for, or what to
make of the remaining uses of "distiller" except that it seemed very much
in line with the degradation of these "communications."

(My brother used to write manuals for the firm that did the manuals to
teach Navy recruits how to launch a missile without blowing themselves
up-- that they didn't any of them so far as we know do that is a miracle
of luck & his head cracking. But that was 50 years ago. I wonder what the
manuals for today's "missiles" are like. If they've gotten as bad as our
computer & other manuals, we don't need to worry about terrorists. We can
do it ourselves.)

> consciously decide what to include and exclude so as to best meet the needs
> of the intended audience. Often they also unconsciously exclude material,
> although that is often basics that they take so much for granted that they
> cannot imagine that the reader does not know the particular item.

Aside from the cases I've cited where that clearly is not their excuse,
since the info I sought was the function of the particular manual to
deliver, you're more or less stating my case, which is that IT'S IN THEIR
HEAD SO THEY DON'T REALIZE THEY HAVEN'T PUT IT ON THE ******** PAGE !
That, by the way, if I may be permitted a personal plug, was I believe one
of the reasons Post-Factory drew much praise: for being clear. And the
reason for that was that in many cases at least the editrix knew enough to
know the instructions OUGHT to make sense, & have an idea of the way the
business worked, so that when something wasn't clear she asked the
necessary questions. As a rule there were 43 intervening e-mails for a
"how-to" article. (And usually in the course of this low key discussion,
interesting amplifications of all sorts arrived, definitely enriching the
text.) Do these manuals get any vetting at all? Do they get a reader with
SOME experience in the field, but not fully polished, like the potential
user? It doesn't seem that way to me. I figure the "editors" think it's
all gibberish anyway, so nevermind.

> What would help in this case would be a better definition of the audience and
> subject material covered in the manual that is included in the preface of the
> manual.

In the PREFACE???

Surely you jest.

The PREFACE of the manual is too late -- like telling me the destination
after I've bought my ticket, boarded, and the plane is in the air. That
info needs IN ANY EVENT to be given the writer, eg: you need to explain
which program & which functions. Then that would be ON THE COVER (in my
dreams).

I meanwhile suspect, BTW, that you may write manuals. And I congratulate
you on your excellent defense. But also (as noted above) it contains some
indictment as well. And sucked me into this long rant -- taking time much
more profitably used, needless to say, in reading the ******* manuals!!!!

best,

Judy

> ------------
> Bill Laidley
>
> "...We have no idea, now, of who or what the inhabitants of our future might
> be. In that sense, we have no future. Not in the sense that our grandparents
> had a future, or thought they did. Fully imagined cultural futures were the
> luxury of another day, one in which 'now' was of some greater duration. For
> us, of course, things can change so abruptly, so violently, so profoundly,
> that futures like grandparents' have insufficent 'now' to stand on. We have
> no future because our present is too volatile. ...We have only risk
> management. The spinning of the given moment's scenarios. Pattern
> recognition."
>
> From "Pattern Recognition" by William Gibson
>
Received on Sat Mar 18 18:53:55 2006