RE: the ******* manuals

I think it has more to do with who is writing the manual than whom it is
intended. I was talking with technical support, one of those off shore
support calls, and the tech kept telling me "no problem". Well I just
couldn't help myself from telling him that that might not be the best phrase
to use since I was in fact calling in with ... Yes, A PROBLEM! It Is not
just that they assume you know more, but that the people doing the training
are all speaking the same dialect with all the same idioms.

I recently purchased a Nikon 9000 scanner. I went to apply my monitor
profile to the work flow and it would not work; invalid profile. I called
tech support and they told me that third party profiles are not supported.
Never mind that I had used a very reputable hardware/software package to
make it. They did not support it. I turned to the yahoo support group where
someone pointed out a simple fix. ( I forgot to select "all file types",
icc, icm.) But not one support person could provide that answer. SAD, very
sad. They did refer me to page 82-89 of the manual. Unfortunately my
printed copy only went to page 79 followed by French, Spanish, German.

Oh Well, damn the manual, I am scanning : )

Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street
Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
http://ericneilsenphotography.com
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 6:53 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: 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 21:09:18 2006