Another aspect of organization which we wish to discuss separately is the need to arrange information physically so that readers can easily find their route through a mass of information that must be made available, but will not all be relevant to all readers. It is often necessary to present information which has complex inter-relations, and to show how those inter-relations can lead to various outcomes.
Similarly, it is often necessary to explain that various combinations of conditions can produce a particular state (perhaps a fault), and to explain that various actions must be taken according to which conditions exist.
From reading tax guides or instruction manuals for equipment, we all know that prose accounts of this sort of information can be extraordinarily complex.
They often read like conundrums. Though the sentences may be short and simple, the complexity of the relations is confusing, principally because we have to read about all the possible situations. Normally, however, readers are interested in only one set of conditions, and wish to know the outcome from these only. They want the information presented in a way that will help them sort out the possible relationships or conditions and isolate the set relevant to their interests.
In these circumstances, it is not enough just to ‘present’ the complex information—to make a mass of data available to any reader prepared to work through it. For effective communication, the writer must enable readers to find their way quickly and easily to the decisions they need, which means helping them to ignore information not relevant to them. The writer must make the right information available for use, yet make minimum demands on the readers’ time and attention.
Often, the best way to meet these objectives when writing about procedures is to use an algorithm. An algorithm is a carefully planned sequence of statements, questions or instructions arranged in a logical hierarchy and requiring readers to read only the starting item and such subsequent items of information as are relevant to their needs.
The most common forms of algorithms in engineering and scientific work are list-form algorithms, flow-charts (logical trees) and MAP layouts (Maintenance Analysis Procedure—a format evolved by the IBM Corporation). All achieve the same purpose: they enable readers to concentrate on finding a clear path through
a complex set of relationships or conditions by ignoring anything that does not apply to their situations. They can usually be syntactically simpler than prose.
They reduce distraction caused by unwanted information and reduce the load on memory because readers do not have to hold in mind previous questions or previous decisions.
Before the adapter test can be carried out it is essential to check that there is a gap of 0.13 to 0.25 mm between the cardreader lamp and the optic surface at the bottom of the lampholder screw-hole.
If there is no gap or if the gap is not within the specified measurements, disconnect the cardreader lamp terminals, screw the lamp out of the lampholder and inspect the optic surface beneath the lampholder screw-hole for dirt, dust or damage. If the optic surface is in good condition (shiny), the lamp can be reinstalled, ensuring that the gap between the lamp and the optic surface at the bottom of the lampholder screw-hole is between 0.13 and 0.25 mm. Use a card strip to check this gap. If the optic surface is dirty or dusty, clean the surface with lintfree cloth (and alcohol if necessary) and then reinstall the lamp, ensuring that the correct gap is present between the lamp and the optic surface. If the optic surface is not dirty or dusty but is in unsatisfactory condition for some other reason, exchange the fibre optic assembly (see Section 10 for procedure) and then reinstall the lamp, ensuring that the correct lamp-to-surface gap is present.
When the lamp is reinstalled, reconnect the lamp terminals. Then press the FAD button to signal that the cardreader is ready for the adapter test.
Fig. 6.1 Prose account of a maintenance procedure.
1. Use a card strip to check the gap between the cardreader lamp and the optic surface. Is there a gap of 0.13 to 0.25 mm?
YES: Read 8
NO: Read 2 2. Disconnect cardreader lamp terminals. Screw lamp out of holder.
Inspect optic surface beneath the lampholder screw-hole for dirt, dust or damage. Is the optic surface in good condition (shiny)
YES: Read 7
NO: Read 3
3. Is the optic surface damaged? YES: Read 4
NO: Read 5 4. Exchange the fibre optic assembly (see Section 10 for procedure),
then . . . .
Read 7
5. Is the optic surface dirty or dusty? YES: Read 6
NO: Read 7 6. Clean the optic surface with lintfree cloth (and alcohol, if necessary),
then . . . .
Read 7 7. Reinstall lamp.
Use a card strip to ensure the gap between cardreader lamp and optic surface is between 0.13 and 0.25 mm.
Reconnect lamp terminals, then . . . .
Read 8
8. Press FAD button to signal that cardreader is ready for the adapter test.
Fig. 6.2 List-form algorithm for a maintenance procedure.
Examples of a complex piece of prose, and of three algorithmic presentations of the same information are given in Figs. 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4. The original prose text is shown in Fig. 6.1. The list form algorithm (Fig. 6.2) presents the same information using simple numbering. It is clear and to the point and takes less space than the flow chart or MAP layout. The need for the reader’s eye to jump from item to item is, however, a disadvantage.
The flow chart algorithm (Fig. 6.3) is equally explicit but takes more time to prepare and more space in the document. It has, however, the advantage of using lines to guide the reader’s eye from one item to the next. Also it can use different symbols (squares, rectangles, diamonds, circles) to emphasise the distinction between instructions, questions, comments and conclusions.
The MAP format (Fig. 6.4) is explicit and takes less space than a symbolic flow chart algorithm. It also has the great advantage that it can be produced entirely by typewriter. All the elements can be typed in from a normal alphanumeric keyboard. A disadvantage, however, is that it has less visual impact than a symbolic flow chart.1
Complex, inter-related items of information are almost always communicated most efficiently to scientific and technical readers if presented in flow charts or logical trees, but once again it is necessary to emphasise that the most suitable choice of communication tactics will depend on the aim, audience and context of the document you are writing. Research has shown that the speed and accuracy with which readers can find their way through complex information vary according to:
• whether each reader is able to decide easily which items of information are relevant and which irrelevant to his or her situation;
• whether there are so many interdependent contingencies that some display formats are automatically precluded.2
Wright and Reid explored the comparative effectiveness of presenting complex information in four ways—complex prose, a list of simple short sentences, a table, and a flow chart (the formats are shown in Fig. 6.5). Their main conclusion was that details of the user’s background experience and situation influence the relative effectiveness of the different formats. For example:
…in a handbook, such as a car maintenance handbook which is to be used by trained technicians, the table may well be a more appropriate format than the flow chart. The technician’s training may enable him to distinguish relevant from irrelevant factors. However, that same handbook, conveying exactly the same information, may nevertheless be better as a logical tree if it is being used on a do-it-yourself basis by the homespun car mechanic.3
These findings emphasize the need for writers to choose their visual tactics with as much thought about their aim and audience as they use in choosing their verbal tactics. Chapter 10 discusses visual communication in more detail.4 Fig. 6.3 Flow chart algorithm for a maintenance procedure.
References
1. Adams, Neil, (1978) Flow Charts Versus MAPS: Which format is more efficient as an aid to fault-finding? The Communicator of Scientific and Technical Information, 35, 3–4.
2. See Wright, Patricia and Reid, F. (1974) Written Information: Some alternatives to prose for expressing the outcome of complex contingencies Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 160– 166.
Fig. 6.4 MAP layout for a maintenance procedure.
FLOWCHART—LOGICAL TREE
The list of short sentences was set out as follows:
Where only time is limited travel by rocket.
Where only cost is limited
travel by satellite if journey more than 10 orbs, travel by astrobus if journey less than 10 orbs.
Where both time and cost are limited travel by space ship.
Where time and cost are not limited
travel by super star if journey more than 10 orbs, travel by cosmocar if journey less than 10 orbs.
PROSE SENTENCES
If journey less than 10 orbs If journey more than 10 orbs
Where only time is limited travel by travel by
Rocket Rocket
Where only cost is limited travel by travel by
Astrobus Satellite
Where time and cost are not limited
Fig. 6.5 The four formats which were compared in a study of ways of presenting complex information (reproduced by permission of Dr P. Wright).
3. Wright, Patricia, (1977) Behavioural Research and the Technical Communicator, The Communicator of Scientific and Technical Information, 32, 5.
4. See also Lewis, B.N., Horabin, I.S. and Gave, C.P. (1967) Flow Charts, Logical Trees and Algorithms for Rules and Regulations CAS Occasional Papers, 2, HMSO, London.