Work with Me!

There are a few things I need to disclose about myself before continuing:

1. On the Myers-Briggs Personality Type inventory, I am an "INTP" with a very strong emphasis on the "I" which stands for "introverted". I didn't need a test to tell me that. My kindergarten teacher remarked on my report card "Yvonne likes to work on her own." Little has changed since then. This is not a popular thing to admit in a world where, both professionally and academically, collaboration and teamwork are highly valued. Don't get me wrong. I'm a team player and do "play" well with others. Only a few people would call me difficult (and they're mostly family). I can both follow direction and lead. But I'm just much more comfortable (and, admittedly, happier) when I can execute projects on my own.
2. I love democracy and, in particular, the First Amendment to the Constitution. I abhor censorship. In fact, back in the early 90s I had a second job in a bookstore. The very socially conservative store manager refused to display some particularly controversial titles ("American Psycho" by Bret Easton Ellis and Madonna's racy pictorial essay) even though corporate sent them to us in our weekly shipment. We were under direction to keep them behind the counter and decline to sell them. Despite my personal feelings about the merits of the novel's story or Madonna's artistic integrity, I risked being fired and sold the books. A little stand in the big scheme of things but a stand none-the-less.
3. I do not believe that it takes a degree or formal education to be knowledgeable or to read and interpret scientific or academic material. In fact, I know plenty of people with lots of schooling who I feel know or understand very little and vice versa.

With those disclosures out of the way, I think I'd like to say something about on-line collaboration and, in particular, "wikis".
How Many Design Students Does It Take to Make a Wiki?
I alluded to this a few entries ago - October 29th to be exact. The whole idea of the democratization of knowledge and "expertise" bothers me a bit. I wonder what impact it will have on our culture. Aside from the possibility that it could provide a new spin on the "how many - insert here - does it take to replace a light bulb?" jokes. Had I been better prepared, I would have sought out articles on this. (The articles on the possible effects, not the jokes.) I'm sure they're there. But I think I'd rather rely here on my own recent experiences with this relatively new phenomenon.
Last month I worked on two projects simultaneously that involved wikis. For one, I was given the task of entering the world of Wikipedia - probably the most popular wiki - to either edit or create an entry. The other project involved working with fellow design students on creating a wiki on the elements of design.
Little Fish in a Big Sea
Entering Wikipedia was a bit intimidating. First, there appear to be all of these rules about style, content, format. Unfortunately, I found their "help" pages extremely difficult to use and confusing. (I needed a book but didn't discover until later that one was available.) Once I got past that, determining what to edit or add was a very daunting process. There are I don't know how many entries on Wikipedia and I don't really feel I qualify as an expert on anything in particular. After a lot of deliberation and failed attempts to find a topic I could add value to, I chose to add a new entry - one on "pediatric spaying and neutering" of puppies and kittens(spay/neuter is performed on puppies and kittens as young as 6 weeks old and up to the standard age of 4 to 6 months old). Of course, a new entry appealed to the INTP in me!
Okay. I am not a vet nor do I play one on TV. However, I do have some knowledge and experience that your average animal lover does not. I served as the vice president of a non-profit animal shelter in South Jersey for 6 years in the 90s. That shelter has a spay/neuter clinic. And, as it happens, they were testing out "early" spay/neuter in the clinic when I was on their board. When it came to instituting a policy regarding this practice, I felt it was my responsibility to understand the pros and cons before voting on it and did some research - mostly reading the little bit of scientific literature that was available and talking to the clinic manager. Over the years since then, it's a topic I've followed with interest. As luck might have it, pediatric spay/neuter was not addressed on Wikipedia.
In preparation, I spent many hours researching the topic and seeking out balanced articles supported by reputable studies. I wrote the article, struggled through the cumbersome posting process, and, voila, "published" an article on Wikipedia. It was no easy feat. And, in all honesty, I felt very much like an impostor doing it. Who was I, a person who was not especially good at biology and who was not a veterinarian, to post this kind of material for all of the world to read? I was careful with my research but...was I the appropriate person to do this?
Well, my concerns about the legitimacy of my claims to expertise all vanished the next day when, to my shock and dismay, my page had vanished. It seems that one of the self-imposed editors (or maybe an officially appointed monitor - who knows since it all appears to be anonymous) had "redirected" my article to one simply titled "Neutering". The result of "redirecting" is that the content disappears from public view. I had seen this other article. It was, I thought, long and included information beyond the dog and cat topic of my interest. It seemed to me to be a disservice to both the information already there and the information I intended to provide to combine them on one entry. Apparently, the anonymous "redundancy police" did not take the time to review both posts to see how the new post had distinct information. Had they read it, they might have just moved it to the "Neutering" entry.
I panicked. Not only had I put a lot of time into this project, I had a grade for a class riding on the fact that I actually did something. Plus, I felt by this point that I did have something important to say. Through some trial and error (again, the instructions were not particularly helpful to me), I discovered that I could undo the "redirect" - so I did. And I added a comment imploring the would be "editors" to allow the entry to remain and pointed out the distinctions in the content. To my relief, the posting is still there. You can view it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pediatric_spaying. I'm hoping that on my winter break from school I can return to complete the information requested by the "style police".
While this dispute was resolved civilly, I'm not sure all are. That's inferred in some of the guidelines about resolving disagreements. Rules seem to be applied inconsistently. For instance, one classmate posted an informational piece about his real estate business. It was deleted as a purely "commercial" post. But another person in class modified a post about an AT&T or Motorola product that, to me, appeared to be blatantly commercial.
Like political democracy, it appears that informational democracy can get messy. I wonder how very unpopular topics are handled. How far can you go...really? And who has the final say on what's a legitimate post and what is not? Is every piece fact-checked by someone? And is the fact-checker qualified to make the call?
In my classes, Wikipedia entries are often used to provide definitions or examples of terms. I'm certain my professors know a good, accurate post when they see one so I'm not questioning their judgement. But what about the person who is looking on her own and just searching for enlightenment? Since posts are anonymous, how do we know we're not buying snake oil when we use the entries? I get a queasy feeling about the possibility of students - particularly elementary and high school students - using the entries as sources for research papers. How can a user be certain he's not using the equivalent of an op-ed piece as a research source? Sure, anyone can post on the Internet. Just go to Google Sites and create a free web page. You can say whatever you want and present it as fact. In fact, that was an exercise in one class - to determine the legitimacy of information posted to appear as factual information. My concern is, though, that the organization and formality of Wikipedia implies a certain level of trustworthiness. It looks and feels institutionalized. Official.
I still can't get past the question of who is the final arbiter in this process. I worry about the tyranny of the majority. One of my favorite movie lines is from "Men in Black". Tommy Lee Jones' character says to Will Smith's character:

1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

Those new ideas are often squelched when they are unpopular. How many unique ideas have been or will be deleted from Wikipedia because the majority feel they're unsupported or inaccurate?
Let's Get Together
My other class took on a less visible but equally challenging project - creating a wiki in Wikispaces. Our task was to each take an element of design and create an original page to define and illustrate it. I found the Wikispaces tool much easier to use than Wikipedia. And knowing that some unknown person would not come along and delete everything was comforting. But I will say that it was challenging.
After posting our initial pages, our goal was for each of us to provide at least one edit to each of the other students' pages. Some of the pages were exceptional. It was difficult to find ways to improve the material. I felt I was being intrusive. On the other hand, some pages seemed to have incomplete or inaccurate information. They were easier to update. Some of the errors were not obvious. Had I not felt compelled to look further to outside sources (the INTP in me), I would not have known for sure. And at least one "enhancement" made after I was done my edits (and after the site was locked for grading) was, to my dismay, inaccurate. A sample of an analogous color scheme was used as an example of a complementary color scheme. In fact, after looking back at it, the complementary color chart seems to be incorrect as well!
Many great edits were made to my original page. I had a difficult topic with very little available information in the on-line tutorials and articles. "Format and Orientation". Not as sexy as "color" or "proportion". While I felt I made a good start, the class critiques were a little more...critical. This is where putting the ego aside is useful.
I do believe that the pages overall were improved by the collaborative efforts. The page I started is a good example. However, knowing the errors I found, I am leery of the accuracy of some of the material. Questions remain. Did the authors use good sources? Did they understand the information well enough to interpret it? That brings me back to the impostor complex I had with my Wikipedia experience. Do we know what we don't know? Are we fully aware of our lack of understanding of certain concepts or our misinterpretation of them? From some of the material, I don't think we do. It makes me wonder what I may have misstated on the Wikipedia entry. Or in the design entry for that matter.
As for who had the final say in what was correct on our project, it seems to have been the last person to edit a page. Is that a good way to approach a wiki or other collaborative effort in, say, a business environment? Or do you have one person with responsibility for ensuring accuracy, completeness, and compliance with standards?
Now What?
So, now that I've expressed my anxieties about these collaborative efforts, what do we do about it? Are these reasons to turn our backs on wikis? Do we censor those without credentials from talking like experts in a public forum that could be mistaken for a reputable source of information? Or do we, maybe, encourage the inclusion of disclaimers - more obvious, bold disclaimers - that the material is from "common folk - just like us"? Maybe we encourage revelation of the authors and their credentials - if they have any.
It could be argued that there's no real risk here. Anyone can write a book with inaccurate information. Publish a newsletter. Create a video. Write a memo. These items can provide misinformation, lies, half-truths. Sure they can. But it's a whole lot harder (costlier...more time consuming) to get those thing out and circulated. My little article or my class' wiki project could be seen by billions of people in an instant at no or little cost. There's a lot of power in that. And, as Spiderman learned, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood

There's nothing more frustrating than trying to use documentation that you just don't understand. I'm going through that experience right now. My S.O. ("significant other") is having computer problems. A few months ago, his 4 year old computer crashed. Apparently, despite active virus protection software, it acquired some fatal disease that caused the desktop unit to look for a laptop battery. It is still not functional. As a stopgap measure, I loaned him my 6 year old computer that I had replaced recently before starting school in September. In all the time I had that old PC, I only had minor problems with it last spring when it started running painfully slow. I had it "tuned up" and, from then on, it worked like new. After only 3 months, however, he is having problems with it.

Diagnosis for the computer's demise: Teenagers!

He has two boys: 16 and 17. Despite warnings, they continue to visit sites and download material that they've been warned against accessing. They deny it but my S.O. continues to get suggestive invitations from young attractive women that point to the contrary. The latest dilemma is that the system does not recognize or cannot find Windows. So, I got my hands on a CD to reload Windows XP. Because I cannot access Windows to run it from the Start menu, I have to install it in the DOS environment - and it's been a long time since I've had to do something like that. Amazingly, I've remembered a lot but, regretfully, not enough. I visited the Microsoft website and the instructions are just plain useless to me. I searched the web further and nothing seems to help. So I am now off to talk to my friends on the help desk for assistance.

In the meantime, I'd like to say to Microsoft: "Invest is some better user readability testing. Not just with the techies - do some testing with folks like me. Or, better yet, people like my S.O. who don't even know what "underscore" is on the keyboard. All sorts of people are using computers these days and would like to be able to fix problems on their own. Work with us, will ya'?!?"

Do You Read Me?

I know of what I speak! For a good part of my career in mortgage banking, I've been responsible for creating user documentation - primarily policies and procedures along with some systems documentation and job aids. I learned along the way that not everyone thinks the way I do or learns the way I do. What to me is perfectly logical and clear can be convoluted or even gibberish to another person.

If the reader cannot understand and use the documentation, it's worthless. As individuals conveying complicated information to people who have to actually take action using that information, we must remember that we are writing for others, not for ourselves. Unfortunately, not everyone who writes manuals or explanatory material understands that.

How do we determine that our documentation is readable? That it can be understood by our intended audience? We need to test it!

Testing...1-2-3...Testing...

How do you test documentation for readability?

Well, there are several different ways and your best bet is to utilize a combination of them to achieve optimal results.

Things you want to look for in your testing:

• Ease of learning - How quickly can the user understand what she reads? Does she have to read and re-read several times to get it?
• Efficiency of use - How quickly can the user apply the material learned?
• Memorability - Once the user understands how to apply the information, can he remember it or does he have to frequently return to the documentation for a refresher?
• Minimizing errors - Does the user grasp the material or does the user consistently make errors even after reading the material?
• User satisfaction - Does the user feel that the documentation is easy to understand and helpful?

Doing the Math

There are mathematical formulas for testing readability of documents. There are the Flesch Readability Scale, the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, and the Gunning Fog Index which use elements in text such as the average length of sentences and the average number of syllables in the words to determine how hard a document is to understand.

These tests can be done manually but that is no longer necessary. Software is available to test your content. In fact, you can test for both Flesch scores in Microsoft Word.

1. Click on Tools.
2. Select Spelling and Grammar.
3. Click on Options.
4. Under "Grammar", select "Show readability statistics."

When you complete your document, run Spell Check. After Word has completed the spelling and grammar checks, a dialog box will provide a report that looks like this. A score of "65" or higher for Readability is considered "plain language". The desirable grade level depends on your audience.

While these tests are good starting points to make your documentation more accessible, they do not measure things like whether or not:

• You've effectively communicated the information;
• The information is well organized;
• The format is user-friendly and the text is legible; or
• The content is appropriate to the users.

For that, you need to work with real, live people - representative users.

Tell Me What's On Your Mind

All of the mathematical equations in the world will not ensure that your user documentation is worth the paper or computer screen it's written on. In order to test that, you need to consult with actual users.

Select a representative pool of users. There may be many types of people using your documentation. Think about it. Ask around. Who needs the information?

In my world, I was primarily writing for people who took loan applications, processed loan applications, and prepared loan closing documents. But I quickly found that it didn't stop there. I also had state and federal regulatory agencies looking at the documentation to ensure we were giving our employees adequate and appropriate direction. Our legal department had an interest in it to support our position in litigation and customer complaints. Other internal departments, like Accounting, Loan Servicing, and Underwriting consulted it to understand processes and opportunities for improvement. So, it was necessary to consider all of these areas when documenting policies and procedures.

Ask your sample users to document their findings. They should consider various aspects including:

• Is the information accurate, complete, and appropriate?
• Does it flow and match what happens (or should happen) in the real world?
• Is the information presented in a logical order?
• Are the graphics appropriate, necessary, and consistent with the policies, rules, and processes?
• Would more graphic examples enhance the material or should some graphics be removed?
• Is the layout easy to use and pleasing to look at?
• Is the typeface legible? Does it need to be larger or smaller?
• Can desired information be located quickly?
• Is the language appropriate? Are there too many hard words or is the information too simplified for even a new employee? Are sentences too long or too short?
• Are there cultural, gender, or class biases?

Testers must be reminded to be critical and honest. And you, as the documenter, need to put ego aside. Don't argue over feedback. It can be tough to have someone criticize your work and tell you they don't like or understand your material. Taking a few steps back and looking at it from the user's perspective can help. Taking user suggestions will improve your documentation. Like I said, if they can't use it, it's not worth a thing.

Going back to the criteria under "Testing..." above, it may be useful to test your users' comprehension. Monitoring performance in the real world can also measure the effectiveness of the documentation.

It's Getting There That Counts

In the long-run, the goal is to create thorough, user-friendly, useful documentation. Your users will be happier. They'll also be more productive and efficient. (No more spending hours trying to figure out how to do it right!) Better documentation supports training and reduces the need for continued follow-up training. It also reduces calls to help desk or support teams and time taken by supervisors and managers to provide individual instruction.

And it will mean that your documentation will be used and valued. I was surprised when I found out just how many people in my organization used and valued the manual I created in my last position. A lot of the success had to do with the fact that I listened to my testers. I didn't always like everything they had to say but they were most often right. I handed over the documentation to others 5 years ago. It's surprising how little has changed. It was slightly reformatted but not so significantly as to be markedly distinguishable from the original. And most of the text remains the same. Better still, people still refer to it and actively use it.

I take a good bit of pride in that!