Notes for Robert R. Johnson User-Centered Technology: A Rhetorical Theory for Computers and Other Mundane Artifacts
Key concepts: designer's image, human factors, local knowledge, localized situation, metis, rhetorical triangle, system actions, tutorial, usability research, user's situation, user tasks.
Audience centered rather than writer centered approach to technology. Uses myth of Prometheus but could also invoke Odysseus. System centered model is the designer's perspective. Posits user-centered rhetorical triangle. View user as practitioner, producer and citizen. Connect to Barker task-oriented software documentation as example of user-centered technology focusing on localized situation. In the end, aren't we back to Feenberg? Johnson's solution is to coax more support for empowering technical writers from businesses and institutions, mainly through education - the final chapter is on curricula - an answer the operates within the traditional logic of capitalist production. Besides obvious nod towards FOSS practices, consider IDEX Voice of the Customer as a business practice that tries to involve the user in iterative design efforts. Suggests reasons to study computer user documentation, including the “tutorial genre” as cultural lens, aligning with software studies, where I argue FOS cultures provide low hanging fruit.
Related theorists: Barker, Carroll, de Certeau, Feenberg, Grabill, Hartley, Kinneavy, Mitcham, Taylor, Turkle, Vernant, Wacjman, Winner, Wright.
Foreword
(x) As practice and
as pedagogy, it seeks to shift the emphasis in technical
documentation from the user as a passive recipient of technical
information to the user as an active cocreator of that information
and the technology it inscribes.
Preface
(xi-xii)
Winner presents an
approach to technology based upon concepts of limits.
. . . The act of defining these limits and then governing them is, in
his view, the responsibility of the populace, not something that
should just be left to the institutions that currently control the
direction of technology design, development, and dissemination.
(xii)
Mitcham
wants
the discipline of philosophy to create a space where people can
become critically aware of technology and its manifestations. . . .
Similar to Winner, but clearly more couched in a Marxist, socialist
frame, Feenberg brings the disciplines associated with critical
theory into the debates surrounding technology, technique, and
society.
(xii) Sociologists . . . have helped develop methods of
investigation (mostly ethnographic or case studies) that tell stories
of people and technology in a variety of contexts.
(xiii) In a
fine overview of feminist perspectives, Judith Wacjman
(1991)
reminds researchers of technology and culture that we should be
interested in the private spheres.
Audience-centered rather than writer-centered approach to technology informed by Winner, Mitcham, Wacjman.
(xiv-xv)
I perceive rhetoric as a discipline that, for over twenty-five
hundred years, has had a central investment in revealing the
unconscious and uncovering the mysterious for the end of transferring
knowledge in a democratic and an ethical manner.
(xv) I am arguing
for an audience-centered, not a writer-centered approach to
technology.
PART I Situating Technology
CHAPTER
1
Users, Technology, and the Complex(ity) of the Mundane: Some
“Out of the Ordinary” Thoughts
Retelling
and Reinventing the Mundane
(4)
These silent, hidden stories have been effaced in modern times,
however, as the value placed upon the stories of everyday knowledge -
of “know-how” - has given way to the “knowledge of the
machine,” or the “knowledge in the system.”
(5) The
knowledge of everyday practice has become nearly voiceless: a
colonized knowledge ruled by the technology and the “experts” who
have developed the technologies. . . . For de Certeau, know-how
has
become a matter of folklore, of tales often told but not believed to
be “real.” . . . Rhetoric, particularly the arts
of
rhetoric, can be used to resurrect this lost form of knowledge and
make it visible.
(6) The multiple roles we all play in our
everyday actions, in contrast to the overspecialized view we most
often have of our lives, speak most pointedly of the lost, colonized
voices of know-how.
(6) The reversal of theory then
practice
to practice then
theory
is a table-turning phenomenon unrecognizable by many academic
disciplines that instead champion the knowledge of theory over the
knowledge of practice.
Recovering
the Mundane
(9)
As unreflective as we may be of language as a technology, it is still
a human construct, a human invention that is taught, learned, and
used in strategic ways, much as we might use hammers, automobiles, or
computers. In addition, all three subjects in this scene are users of
the larger, more ominous industrial technology of steel
manufacturing.
De Certeau recovering mundane subverted beneath discourse of expertise.
(10-11)
In essence, users understand technology from a unique perspective
constructed from knowledge of practice within certain contexts. Yet,
as de
Certeau and
a few others claim, this type of knowledge is subverted beneath a
discourse of expertise, and thus has been rendered invisible to the
modern eye. We take for granted that which we do
and
unwittingly surrender knowledge and power due to our lack of
reflection on our mundane interactions with technology.
(11) In so
doing, we also surrender fundamental democratic rights and
responsibilities.
(11) Users of a culture, in other words, often
are
the
better judges, but if they are silent or invisible then they (we)
have little power to affect the decision-making processes.
Theorizing the Mundane
Encompass discursive, nonmaterial aspects of technology beyond engineering perspective, sensitive to cognizance of cultural ambivalence and historical context.
(12)
This theory of users and technology also must be cognizant of the
social context - the cultural ambiance - that ultimately situates the
user and the technology.
(13) I emphasize that the problems
associated with technological use are, literally, ancient. Historical
context, in other words, is lacking in most user-centered research.
The ancient Greeks, from whom I draw a number of concepts regarding
technology and use, treated technology as an art
was in the use
of the product, not in the design or making of the product
itself.
(14) My interest in technology encompasses the discursive,
or nonmaterial, aspects of technology and technological use.
CHAPTER
2
Refiguring the End of Technology: Rhetoric
and the Complex of Use
(18)
Prometheus had brought to humans, through fire, the knowledge of art:
the systematic, creative knowledge of craft and technique.
Surprising that Johnson does not invoke, along with Prometheus, Odysseus for his cunning use of language to trick the cyclops angers the gods that embodies metis discussed later.
(18)
Prometheus had given humans the power of knowledge, and one of the
strongest forms of this “crafty” knowledge was language.
(19)
the power
of
language and other technologies is useful, but with that power comes
responsibility for, and a respect of, the powerfulness.
Technology
and Rhetoric: A Connection of Ends
Technology
and “Interested” Ends
(21)
I propose that the end of technology be refigured as in the user:
those humans . . . who interact with various technologies . . . on a
daily basis in our public and personal lives.
Rhetoric and the End of an
“Art”
(21-22)
rhetoric is the art
of
creating (inventing), arranging, and delivering language for the
purpose of evoking action upon the part of the audience.
(23)
Drawn from the Aristotelean concept of productive knowledge, this
definition of art
places
an ethical and a moral responsibility upon the rhetor/maker/artisan
to make artifacts that suit the needs of the audience or, in the case
of technology, the user.
(24) First, techne
is
aligned with a “true course of reasoning.”
(24) Second, techne
is
not concerned with issues of certainty.
The System-Centered Model of Technology
System-centered model of technology embodies designer image.
(26-27)
The system is created through a process of prototyping and iterative
redesigning that is primarily controlled by the designers or
artisans. From this process emerges a technological artifact that
embodies the designer's
image of
the system.
(27) The interface is crucial to the user of the
technology, but more often than not this intimate connecting point
between the technology and the user is relegated to the end of the
development cycle.
User-friendly may not be designed in best interests of users: easy to use but purpose still baffling, potentially promoting unethical uses of technology.
(28)
User-friendly can describe a technological interface that is easy to
use buy may not necessarily be the best interest of the user.
(29)
due to the confusion or lack of acknowledgment concerning
technology's ends, we continue to create technologies that baffle
users and in the worst cases promote unethical uses of technology
(Sedgwick 1993).
Appears system is driving the user; add users situation to design model, representing user activities of learning, doing and producing.
(29)
Why, it can be asked, does the designer not have feedback from the
system, and more importantly, feedback from the user? It appears that
the system is driving the user, and once again it serves as the
central focus.
(30) A theory of user-centered technology must keep
the user's view of reality in mind to avoid entrapment in what could
appear overtly to be user-centered ends, but could covertly be a
reconstruction of system-centered ends.
(31) the model shifts the
focus by concentrating on the user, and it adds another dimension -
the user's
situation.
(31)
it represents the user activities of learning,
doing,
and producing.
(31)
The user's situation also takes into account the tasks
and
actions
he
or she will be performing as a result of a particular situation of
activity.
(32) In a user-centered approach to technology, users
are active participants in the design, development, implementation,
and maintenance of the technology.
(33) The designer, as the
arrows indicate in Figure 2.4, receives feedback about the technology
from all quarters - the user, the interface, the artifact, and the
user's situation. . . . Drawn from the system, the user's situation,
the designer's image of the system, and from the users themselves,
the interface - the crucial component of the technology that users
literally touch or feel - is derived from a true negotiation.
Resituating the User: Rhetoric and the Complex of
Use
Rhetoricizing the User-Centered Model
Kinneavy rhetorical triangle has for points Reader, Writer, Reality, and Johnson places Text in the center; his version has points Artifact/System, Artisans/Designers, User Tasks/System Actions with Users in the center; compare to Cummings use of rhetorical triangle to discuss machine rhetorics and programming.
(34)
Kinneavy's
triangle changed the terms on the three points from Richards'
referent/symbol/thought to reality/reader/writer, and he provided a
fourth term that was added to the center of the triangle - text (see
Figure 2.5).
(36)(Figure 2.6) The User-Centered Rhetorical
Triangle
(37) User tasks are the
representations of the technology's actions as perceived by the user.
System actions are the technology's actions as perceived by the
artisan or designer.
(38) these pressures and constraints help
from a complex that
circumscribes, and, in turn, fashions, the rhetorical components of
technology (see Figure 2.7).
(38) In the first rind, the context
of user activity is represented by the three activities of learning,
doing,
and producing.
(38)
The next outward ring describes those constraints that larger human
networks place upon technological use. These networks - depicted here
as disciplines,
institutions,
and communities.
(39)
Residing on the outer edges of the complex are the factors of culture
and
history.
PART II Complicating
Technology
CHAPTER 3
Not Just for Idiots Anymore: Practice,
Production, and Users' Ways of Knowing
(44-45)
The idea that users are “mindless” is nothing new. . . . From
automobiles to computers, the concept of idiot proofing has defined
the view of the user: someone who knows little or nothing of the
technological system and who is seen as the source of error or
breakdown.
(45) To effectively implement changes to current
notions of users and use will take concerted efforts to understand
the knowledge
that
users have of technological artifacts and systems.
(45-46) is
knowledge production also within the province of those generally
associated with “the practical,” such as the technicians or users
of technology?
(46) refiguring technology onto a user landscape
forces a rethinking and potential revaluing of material, social, and
political relations in radical ways.
User as practitioner, producer and citizen displace designer perspective they are mindless.
(46)
The first of these aspects is user
as practitioner.
. . . when users are viewed as only the mere implementors of
technology, there is little room for a user epistemology other than
as an “idiot” who receives technology and then puts it to use. .
. . there is a cunning
intelligence involved
with practice that has been virtually overlooked.
(46) The second
aspect . . . is the user
as producer.
. . . users as producers are capable of being designers and
maintainers of technology: humans who are important factors in
technological decision making (as opposed to the unfortunate human
factors we will see exemplified in traditional human factors research
in chapter 4).
(46) The third area . . . is the user
as citizen.
We will investigate how users, particularly in a democracy, can serve
as active participants in the larger technological order.
Knowledge of Practice: User as Practitioner
(47)
The tool-use model ultimately has the effect of describing user
knowledge from a tool-centered, artifact-centered, or system-centered
perspective, because the knowledge of the technology is assumed to be
in the technology, not in the user.
Besides obvious nod towards FOSS practices, consider IDEX Voice of the Customer as a business practice that tries to involve the user in iterative design efforts.
(48)
Removed from the decision-making processes and design stages of how
the tool will be constructed and what purposes it might serve, the
user as tool user is a knowledgeless puppet whose only claim to
epistemic status is the prescriptive knowledge he or she has of the
use of the tool.
(52) techne represents the human force, the human
knowledge that permits control through
technology
- whether the technology is a basic hand tool or an intertwined
network of information services.
Metis as cunning intelligence is also skill of Odysseus (Horkheimer and Adorno) and coyote trickster (Haraway).
(53)
Metis,
or what is also called cunning intelligence, is the ability to act
quickly, effectively, and prudently within ever-changing
contexts.
(54-55) Practical knowledge, especially knowledge of
making aimed at some end, was seen as being very important to the
ancient Greek mind. . . . In the modern context, we simply value
theoretical or scientific knowledge more highly than we do technical
or practical knowledge.
(55)(footnote 19) Technology as applied
science, then, has no real epistemic quality of its own as it can
only borrow knowledge from, or test the knowledge of, science. . . .
As far as user knowledge is concerned, technology as applied science
strips all types of users (e.g., from drivers of cars to mechanics)
of an epistemological base.
(56) The predominance of universal
truth and certain knowledge, they argue, has subverted the situated
and contingent knowledge of the practical arts, like techne
and
metis.
Knowledge
as Production: User as Producer
(57)
Users are producers of knowledge, but their modes of production have
been rendered invisible by those modern cultural proclivities that
subordinate the user to being a mere practitioner.
(58) Users, in
the ancient definition, know the “how” and
the
“that” of technology as it moves from context to context through
iterative processes of production and practice.
Compare user as producer to Turkle juxtaposition of postmodernism and the retreat from deep technical understanding.
(59)
Although I think it important to mourn the loss of generalist skills
associated with producing something from scratch, it is more
important that we actively
pursue
changes to the social order that carefully assess the realities of
the present situation.
(59) Instead, we should bemoan the loss of
a sense of values related to users as they are involved in the
actions of practice and production.
(61) Like the “idiots” who
use technologies, those who hold practical positions in the hierarchy
have the least power even if they are, like the litigation workers,
actually producing knowledge that turns the literal or metaphorical
gears of technology.
Knowledge
of the Polis: User as Participatory Citizen
(62-63)
In concert with the advent of rhetoric, Vernant
points
to the openness of the social order as the second great feature of
the polis.
(63)
This “likeness” laid the foundation for the unity of the polis.
. . . Hierarchy is refigured as a horizontal plane where everyone
shares across a level space, instead of a vertical plane were
decisions and power move from top to bottom (usually) or vice versa
(rarely). . . . Others counter, however, that the melting pot-like
metaphor of “color blindness” is actually a definition of
equality created by those already in power who want to maintain the
status quo.
(63) Without a doubt, a user-centered theory must
confront the dilemma of “likeness” if a goal of the theory is, in
part, to aid in the achievement of a more egalitarian technological
order.
(64)
User-centered approaches should rethink the user as being an active
participant in the social order that designs, develops, and
implements technologies. Users as producers have the knowledge to
play an important role in the making of technologies; users as
practitioners actually use the technologies and thus have a knowledge
of the technologies in action; users as citizens carry use knowledge
into an arena of sociotechnological decision making: the arena of the
polis, or, if you prefer politics.
CHAPTER
4
Human Factors and the Tech(no)logical:
Putting User-Centered Design into
Perspective
(70)
Some may argue (for example, from an “idiot-proof” perspective)
that this apparent mismatch between the machine and the human is the
result of an untrained or a lazy human who just does not understand,
or does not care to take the time to understand the complexity of the
technological system.
(70) Technological systems have been
routinely designed under the aegis of two basic premises: 1) that
systems experts are the best equipped to make design decisions, and
2) that the best systems are designed to reflect rational
decision-making processes.
(70) Most current technology design
processes are based upon rational models of human behavior that
attempt to predict the logical series of actions the potential user
will follow in order to use the artifact.
(71) User-centered
design has basically been the result of research done in and around
the general field of human factors.
(71) This focus on the
rational actions of human users, I will argue, actually perpetuates
the development of system-centered technologies that merely give the
appearance of focusing on the needs of humans.
The Spectrum of Human Factors
(72)
these areas of study wish to make systems more usable, but they still
base their research on models of the system that come from a system
designer's viewpoint. The user is merely represented in the
designer's mind, and the theories assume or require that the designer
be sensitive enough to understand the needs of the user.
(73)
Clearly, the human use perspective argues that the ineffectiveness of
systems lies in the miscalculations and poor planning of the
designers, the changes in environment, or alterations in user needs.
. . . The early assessment of user needs turns much of the designing
planning process around the consequently directs the development of
systems toward a collaborative effort of designers and users.
Human
Engineering or Engineering the Human?: The Beginnings of Human
Factors Research
(74)
From the very beginning, human factors research has been driven more
by a concern for technological and economic development than by a
concern for the user of the technology.
(74-75) He [Taylor]
describes the four basic principles of this empirical method in his
book The
Principles of Scientific Management:
1) scientifically justify each element of a worker's job in terms of
its contribution to efficiency, 2) scientifically select the workers
and train them, 3) ensure that the job is done as prescribed, and 4)
have active management participation in the job.
Computers and End Users Enter the Scene
(76)
The idea that the user must be integral to the design process has
gained considerable momentum over the past fifteen years, but to view
this as a singular movement in the field of human factors would be a
mistake.
Hard Science versus Soft Science in Human-Computer
Interaction
(77) The first
group of researchers - the hard science group - is more interested in
deriving more or less steadfast, universal scientific principles upon
which to base design decisions, while the second group - the soft
science researchers - focuses on the situated user as the central
criterion of design.
(78-79) the approach represented by Newell
and Card places the system ahead of the user. This research is
interested in the computational modeling of the mind as an
information processing machine (Boden 1988). . . . Such research is
driven by concerns of artificial intelligence and not by the human
use of systems.
Studying Users Through Usability and Minimalism
(81)
Interest in the usability of written documents, though, is a
relatively new concept. . . . In Britain, this research was
spearheaded by James Hartley (1985)
and Patricia Wright (1983),
and the focus was on the visual design of information and the
cognitive processes involved with the reading and use of functional
documents.
(81) In the United States, there were two primary
centers for document usability research - the American Institutes of
Research (AIR) and the military. . . . From this research came the
important distinction of functional reading tasks as either “reading
to learn” or “reading to do.”
(81) The testing view is the
more narrow definition - where usability is concerned with the
testing of documents after they have been drafted and often carried
out under laboratory-type conditions. A broader view of usability, as
evaluation, advocates usability as an iterative process that
contributes to early pre-draft evaluation of document needs, as well
as testing that takes place later in the document development
cycle.
(82) writers continue to serve the purpose of editors who
take the findings of usability specialists and revise the documents
accordingly. By using the findings of usability research to build
strategies for documentation writers, we gain knowledge about users
and put this toward the practical purposes of giving documentation
writers strategies for developing more usable documents.
(82)
Carroll [of IBM] drew
upon evidence about novice users from usability research to develop
guidelines for writing manuals of minimal size that avoid getting in
the way of the computer learner by providing adequate, but not
extensive, information.
Designing for Human Activity and User Participation
(83)
they pursue interface designs that are not based upon rational
structures, but instead reflect the often irrational and
unpredictable flux of human nature. . . . human activity and
participatory designers are interested in the social, political,
cognitive, and practical facets of computer usage.
(83) In the
United States, many of the advocates of such design methods are
located at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.
CHAPTER
5
Sociology, History, and Philosophy: Technological
Determinism Along the Disciplinary Divides
Technology, Agency, Society: Sites of Determinist Skepticism
Attempting to Define Technological Determinism
Technology Shaping Culture Shaping Technology
In the Eye of the Beholder: Sociology and the Denial of Technological Determinism
History and the “Turn to Culture” in Technology Studies
Beholden to Technology: Philosophy and the Political Context
PART III Communicating Technology
CHAPTER
6
When All Else Fails, Use the Instructions: Local
Knowledge, Negotiation, and the Construction of User-Centered
Computer Documentation
(117)
Instructions are meant to make the assembly or use of an artifact
appear simple: they are a masking device for the complexity of
systems and artifacts.
(117) Further, instructional documents are
what visibly reside between the user and the black box of technology.
Therefore, they play the role of messenger in the transfer of the
technology to the user and are more apt to be blamed for any
breakdowns that occur during use because they are present at the
moment of frustration or breakdown.
Example of Toptech Quality Assurance practices involve only rigorous documentation of test plans, and completely ignore user documentation.
(118) There is, in short, a deeply embedded assumption that instructional materials are adequate merely because the information is there in either print or on-line form. Never mind where or how the instructions will be used, this assumption dictates; the fact that users have a text in front of them is enough. Ironically, almost insidiously, this assumption places virtually the entire burden of comprehending instructional text on the user.
The user-as-victim and developer-as-hero narrative that is overcome by FOS development communities and even commercial programs like the IDEX Voice of the Customer.
(119) “User beware!” is the appropriate slogan. The user is relegated to the position of a one-way receiver who has little knowledge of the technology itself or how the technological system might be refigured through an active negotiation of designers, producers, and users. Instead, the situated activities associated with use are supplanted in favor of the static, correct description of technology, ala the knowledge of the “expert” who designed and developed the artifact. Thus instructional materials have, innocently or not, played a significant role in the continuation of the modern technology myth that the role of experts is to invent, while the role of novices is to await, with baited breath, the perfectly designed artifact.
Problems with instructional text magnified by personal computer, residing in multiple media, written for online consumption by technical writers regardless of their specialty.
(120)
First, the problems associated with instructional text have been
magnified as a result of the personal computer.
(120) Second,
computer documentation resides in more than one medium (print and
on-line forms), and thus further complicates the challenge of
user-centered theory.
(120) Third, computer documentation writing
is arguably the largest source of employment presently for technical
communicators. . . . Most technical and scientific writers,
regardless of their specialty, write computer-related instructional
materials in print and on-line forms because their audiences are
increasingly using the computer medium as a text.
Why does computer documentation lack serious scholarly analysis finds reasons from history of software studies (see footnote on 124), and the devaluation due to conjunction of complexity, ephemerality, and specificity.
(120) Fourth, computer documentation is a marginalized text in the sphere of academic research.
Suggests reasons to study computer user documentation, including the Barker tutorial genre as cultural lens, aligning with software studies, where I argue FOS cultures provide low hanging fruit.
(121) Finally, computer user documentation is a valuable lens, not only for the study of the texts themselves but also for studying the users who use them and the constituent cultures that arise/evolve from the activities associated with computer technology.
Artifacts, Experts, and Idiots: The
System-Centered View of Computer Documentation
(122)
System-centered design practices, in contrast, have evolved from an
earlier time in computer technology where users were experts in the
use of the systems, thus had little need for instructional texts in
computer usage.
UNIX documentation epitomizes system-centered approach, yielding documentation image of system.
Consider personal notes, examples, and jokes in man pages as examples of Feenberg democratization and Kitchin and Dodge negotiated code space.
(122)
The documentation in the system-centered approach, as exemplified by
the UNIX system, is a literal documenting of the static system: a
description of the system's features removed from any context of
use.
(123) System-centered documentation places the needs
of the technological system at the center and treats the system as
the source of all knowledge pertaining to the development of
documentation (as the arrow [in Figure 6.2] indicates).
(124) From
this designer's image follows the documentation image of the
system.
Here the documentation is written (often by the designers themselves,
at least in draft form) to reflect what the designer views as the
important components of the system.
Often the most useful parts of man pages are the examples, whereas Internet searches answer most questions of specific use: thus new communication technologies fill in gaps in UNIX (now GNU/Linux) documentation, suggesting the system-centered approach is as much a necessary outcome of social, economic, and technological conditions as a bias perpetrated by its producers (but it is also true that most of the man pages were written by the authors of the software programs themselves).
(124)(footnote 8) Most system-centered documentation is produced in-house (and thus proprietary) with little or no published material explaining the process.
Texts, Readers, and “Reality”: The User-Friendly View of Computer Documentation
Screen shots and animated sequences convey a learning by doing rubric since they are exact representations of the user interface in the performance of common operations.
(125)
The user-friendly approach to documentation development is
characterized by an emphasis on the clarity of the verbal text, close
attention to structured page design, copious use of visuals (often
computer “screen shots”), and a warm, sometimes even excited tone
that “invites” the user to enjoy learning the new computer system
or software application. . . . the system is assumed to be complete
in the user-friendly approach, and user-friendly documentation is
viewed as the vehicle for carrying the “reality” of the system
image to the user.
(126) the user-friendly development
process concentrates almost solely on text that has been written in
accordance with the system designer's view of the system where there
is little or no early analysis before the documents are
drafted.
(127) Traditionally, the situation of the reader has been
defined in terms of learning or
doing,
and the texts that result from this interpretation of the user's
situation fall into two categories: those that support learning
(i.e., print genres of tutorials, user guides; on-line genres of
computer-aided training or tours), and those that support doing
(i.e., print genres of reference and quick reference; on-line genres
like “Help”).
(128) because this approach is based on reading,
it focuses on how well readers comprehend and follow printed text. .
. . Such research yields valuable insights into reader behavior, yet
it should be questioned in terms of how easily these findings can be
transferred to the user of other media - primarily the computer
screen.
(128) Secondly, user-friendly research points toward the
active engagement between a reader and a text (see Charney, Reder,
and Wells 1988), but it usually does so outside of the context of a
user's actual situation of use.
(129) Instead of looking at users
as being merely active readers of text, user-centered design must ask
questions of the user's situation, the medium of the documentation,
and the organizational and cultural constraints placed upon the user
and the documents.
Context, Negotiation, and the
Medium: The User-Centered View of Computer Documentation
(129)
the user is not using the documentation to learn software abstractly,
but rather is learning the computer application for a specific
purpose or purposes.
What about the localized situation where the user is intending to become proficient in the technology as a technologist, engineer, or scientist: we have to avoid writing the designers out of the system; see the comments on learning through doing on 133-134.
User-centered approach be reflected back on technology studies in SCOT.
(129)
The core of the user-centered view, then, is the localized
situation
within which the user resides.
(131) The user-centered view
continues outward by taking into account the tasks
and actions the
user will be performing as a result of the users' situation.
(131)
Based upon a rational description of how the user should
act,
traditional task analysis merely reflects the anticipated actions of
an idealized, logical user.
(131) Second, the tasks in traditional
task analysis are still dictated by the system.
(132) Instead, the
analysis attempts to understand the irrational or contingent
occurrences that users experience within their local, everyday
spaces. For instance, it is important in user-centered documentation
to illuminate fundamental characteristics of users' situations to
describe those cunning
solutions
that users have developed for dealing with technology. . . . These
moments of metis
or
articulation
work depict
users producing knowledge, or at least displaying that they
themselves have constructed/produced in the past and are now using to
perform in the present situation. Such localized, domain knowledge is
unaccounted for through most computer documentation development
processes, and, subsequently, the localized cunning knowledge of the
work environment fails to surface in the written texts themselves.
The choice of medium extends beyond print/electronic, and is especially important when it is desired that users be involved in producing documentation. The task of collecting localized domain knowledge may not be appropriate for printed documentation, but exists better in searchable, distributed databases, message forums, and other repositories. This body of user created documentation often exists outside the control of the software producer, and its usefulness is often directly judged by the users by built in rating systems or statistics generated by search engines. This state of affairs is much more apparent ten years after Johnson's book was published than at the time. The assumption that it is too costly to involve the users is to ignore the grassroots efforts that may arise in such distributed, disconnected channels. (Grabill makes the point that much reading and knowledge work is distributed.) Johnson looks to redefining the tutorial genre as a means of maintaining the traditional division of labor between software producer and user consumer. He ends the chapter wondering how to enroll the large number of writers required to produce “customized documentation for specific, localized contexts.” A critical mass has been reached so that user-produced, web-based documentation supplies much of the how-to knowledge desired for solving localized, domain specific questions regarding the use of technology systems of all sorts.
(133)
it is important in user-centered design to determine which medium
will best fit the particular user situation and tasks.
(133) In
addition to a choice of medium, the type of activity that the user is
engaged in must be assessed. . . . In the context of computer
documentation, doing
describes
activities where users are not reflecting upon their actions for the
sake of long-term retention.
(133-134) The term learning,
in the computer documentation realm, is revised to learning
through doing.
This change in terminology accounts for the problems associated with
learning about computers while simultaneously using the computer: a
paradoxical situation where you are compelled to learn (maybe because
your job depends upon the new technology), but you are actually more
interested in just completing the activity at hand.
(134-135)
Producing
describes
two specific activities of users as they are involved with
documentation development. . . . First of all, users in a
user-centered approach actually take part in the production of the
documentation. . . . Second, users are producers in the sense of
knowledge production.
(135) the reason of noninvolvement of users
is the perception that it simply is too costly.
(135)
User-centered approaches to technology development are, in part,
counter to the short-term mind-set of business planning because the
benefit of user involvement can best be measured over the long
term.
(136) A user-centered approach, in essence, is a thorough
form of audience analysis that is aimed at designing documentation
that fits what a user actually
does,
not necessarily what we think
he
or she should do.
(136) The user-centered perspective invites
involvement by the user throughout the process. The two-way movement
attempts to disperse authority through a recursive process that is
always in motion and always correcting itself, dependent upon
situational contingencies.
The
Rhetorical Complex and Computer Documentation
Genres in the
Making: The Case of the Ubiquitous Tutorial
(140)
the genres of computer documentation (print or on-line) generally are
broken down into two overall categories - texts
for doing and texts for learning.
(141)
The genre tutorial
is
supposedly well defined as a “use once, throw away” document - a
no-deposit, no-return text that is supposed to get the user “up and
running.”
Johnson uses the File Maker Pro 2-1 for Macintosh documentation to illustrate this transformation of the tutorial.
(141) There is no reason, however, that tutorial documents could not perform a broader array of functions for users. First, however, the genre “tutorial” will have to be redefined. The concept of tutorials as learning through doing documents offers one perspective on how this can be accomplished.
Thus the ability to display multiple shell sessions to include the built in help (man pages) advantages UNIX-like environments for keeping the user in the midst of the activity at hand rather than launching a complex online help system.
(146) The very presence of documents,
whether print or on-line, presents the danger of users becoming
disengaged from the learning/doing processes, because the documents
can draw the attention away from the activity at hand.
(146) the
issue of empowering writers within their workplace contexts looms
large in the domain of instructional text.
To Document or Not to
Document?
(147) Why not just
make the interface so usable that documentation is never needed?
Beyond the Text: Writers, Writers,
Everywhere
(148) There is
one issue, however, that may be the most problematic of all -
creating customized documentation for specific, localized contexts
and the corresponding number of writers needed to design and develop
the documents.
(150) writers should increasingly take on the role
of interface designer.
Are we back to Feenberg with solution to coax more support for empowering technical writers from businesses and institutions, mainly through education, noting the final chapter is on curricula, an answer the operates within the traditional logic of capitalist production?
Invoke Yeats on recasting technical writer, combining with exposure to philosophy of computing as flip side of more enlightened programmers who also partake in creating documentation.
(150) A recasting of the technical writer, though, will ultimately call for an increased role in the decision-making processes of technological development.
CHAPTER 7
Technical
Communication, Ethics, Curricula: User-Centered Studies and the
Technical Rhetorician
User-Centered Pedagogy: Author(ity) and Ethics in the Classroom
History and Theory in Technical Communication Curricula
Johnson, Robert R. User-Centered Technology: A Rhetorical Theory for Computers and Other Mundane Artifacts. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998. Print.