« More music that's not for everyone | Main | Homeopath »
June 24, 2004
Why the manual sucks
In Understanding Power -- yes, I'm enjoying this one -- somebody asks Noam a question about why people in the US are "anti-intellectual." They discuss terms for a while, finding differences between "intellectual" celebrity and real intellectual work. Norm seems to come down on the side of real intellectual problem solving work, observing that a lot of what passes for "intellectual" work (leading to notariety in places that are not "anti-intellectual" such as France) strongly resembles clerical work you can do with considerably less effort than problem solving.
So then, Noam's questioner says, "But people do look down on people who read books."
And Noam answers, thinking of an imaginary, highly capable auto mechanic solving tough car problems, "But look, this guy may have read books--maybe he read the manual. Those manuals are not so easy to read; in fact, they're harder to read than most scholarly manuals, I think."
Writing software manuals (and their cavalierly misnamed cohorts called guides because they include procedures) being what I do for a living, I have some guesses as to why they're so hard to read.
Typically, you read the manual for hints on solving the problem at hand. The writer wrote the manual without knowing what problems you were going to encounter. The writer probably worked on it with the builders, rather than the users like you. The writer probably had to finish the manual, moving on to the next version or even a different manual both before you got the product it covers, and before learning enough to function as a real user. After publication, the manual content remained unchanged. If you're lucky, someone published errata (usually written on hearsay).
Futhermore, you come to read the manual with all the particular background knowledge that makes up your understanding of the situation, and probably with a number of preconceptions that, if exposed and reconsidered, would help you avoid getting stuck while solving the problem. The writer comes to write the manual with a totally different set of knowledge and expectations, probably without much background in the subject, most people who have background working as builders rather than writers since building has significantly higher status and probably higher pay, and vitually no knowledge of your knowledge.
So the writer may write straight exposition on an inadequately understood subject, whereas you are suffering through a complex problem solving situation, or are reading with the intention of solving problems. You experience that as the manual sucking.
Authors of scholarly works, on the other hand, typically have become experts on the subject matter, are writing for folks taking the same path toward expertise, and don't expect you to approach their work with the intention of solving problems. You experience this as the scholarly work being easier to read.
Posted by Mark at June 24, 2004 04:33 PM