: Re: Should IKEA assembly instructions be used as positive examples to train technical writers? Often, assembly instructions are bad (example via Adafruit): But they don’t have to be: writing assembly

@BetL639

Vote Up Vote Down

I'll add my prior experience to this: the purifier company for which I worked long ago used PLCs for controls on their more complex devices, and had previously spent huge time and effort to write convoluted text descriptions of both user and more technical operations of the onboard software; these descriptions were "baselined" that is, pulled from older manuals from "base models" into newer ones and marked up, to theoretically make them applicable to the newer model. As a result of this baselining method, they had significant issues with accuracy of these descriptions when I started - more than 25% error rates in critical areas, so I replaced almost all of it with screencaps and small text callouts, step-by-step images showing how-tos: both physical procedures like how-to-install and on-screen procedures such as resetting-the-thermocouples, or cold-starting-the-getter-bed.

This led to a huge increase in accuracy per manual per model AND better comprehension and use by both endusers and infield techs.

I still kept a lot of text heavy descriptions of chemistry, especially the stoichiometry and thermal interactions, but overall, I effectively "ikea-ised" those manuals and felt this was a very solid approach to improving quality, ease-of-maintenance, and clarity.

So, though they are oft-maligned, I think Ikea style manuals are an excellent exemplar of technical communications.

(0)

Login to post a comment!