Can't we just get along for the sake of the product?

by Patrick Hofmann, Feature Writer

I recently returned from the European Information Design Conference in Wiesbaden, Germany, where some 1,500 technical communicators gathered to share and learn their latest ideas of our trade. Although the conference had a very heavy focus on localization and translation, I talked with a few documentation managers who were tossing around the idea of "not" translating their docs but instead, turning their regular user guides into very visual or even wordless user guides. One of their common questions was: how does developing the wordless manual fit into the engineering or product development process? Moreover, how does the doc team then interact with the engineering team? My answer: collaborate, collaborate, collaborate!

Product Development

When we began developing our first wordless manuals for Hewlett Packard, documentation development started not only parallel to, but integrated with the product development cycle. As the product engineers focused on designing a low-cost, highly compact, easy-to-assemble network computer, the documentation and usability team focused on designing a low-cost, easy-to-understand wordless manual for the entire global market.

Usability Testing

These two streams of activity converged after the usability testing of the first product prototype. The documentation and usability team discovered that usability participants (equipped at this point with preliminary, worded instructions) could not adequately assemble the product. The highly compact computer had too many obstructions and too little space for parts to be removed, manoeuvred, and inserted into their appropriate locations. 

Product Improvements

As the producers and recorders of the product usability tests, the documentation and usability team became allies of, and collaborators with, the product engineering team. The two teams worked together to improve the product (which would invariably improve the documentation) in three key ways:

• by integrating instructional cues on the product itself, through colour-coded decals, warnings, and engraved labels and arrows
• by proposing alternative configurations for internal cables and card placements to help relieve the congestion of the computer's internal components and to make assembly easier
• by combining components and their supporting brackets into a single piece to reduce the number of components and simplify the assembly.

Time Frames

The two teams achieved these objectives over a six- to eight-month development cycle. Six product prototypes were developed, with iterative usability testing occurring at every other stage (the first, third, and fifth prototypes). At these stages, a new version of the wordless manual was also evaluated.

• In the first usability test, the first product prototype was tested along with a preliminary version of the manual, where worded instructions were placed in boxed groups that would mimic the final layout of the manual.
• In the second usability test, the third product prototype was tested along with a draft of the wordless manual, including a visual table of contents and symbolic titling.
• In the third usability test, the fifth product prototype was tested along with a final version of the wordless manual.

By sticking to this iterative design and evaluation process, the product engineering and documentation/usability teams collaboratively and productively moved forward. As the product prototype improved, the documentation improved, which created an easy-to-use experience from a fully integrated product design. And, dare I say it, this success proved that tech-doc and engineering could live happily ever after.

About Patrick Hofmann

Patrick is an Interaction Designer at Quarry Integrated Communications 
in Waterloo. Although he's a rather vibrant speaker, his specialty is using illustration and visual language to communicate. When he's not trotting around the globe teaching the virtues of visual instruction and design, he conducts a 15-piece Swiss polka band in rural Milverton, Ontario. Who says tech-comm and trumpets don't mix?