Editor's note: Below is a revised version of the original blog post.
I was in a meeting with a client reviewing my user guide for use in training users on a new system in development. The client asked why my user guide did not have the same layout and design as the legacy user guide. Before I answered, my mind flashed back to earlier this year when I was a judge in the Society’s international publication competition, better known as the STC International Summit Awards.
As a judge, I could have easily followed the checklist and injected my opinion and give my recommendations for awards, but it’s not that easy. In truth, that's not how to judge the quality of work. As judges, we compare the entries with other publications we have seen or have written in our careers, and share our observations and our opinions.
We are critical in our findings because we want to provide an objective and constructive assessment — just as you should do when you evaluate any work product. We did not agree on everything, but this one thing is for certain—I respected their opinions. We took our time to carefully write our assessments because we wanted to provide constructive feedback to the authors. The consensus meeting was equally important because we had to argue for and against our assessments. It was important for us that the authors use our comments to both improve their work in the future and to congratulate themselves for doing well.
Those who serve as judges for the STC International Summit Awards (ISA) undergo an evaluation by the ISA committee. The committee does not invite individuals back who don’t give their best effort to judge. That said, it is a privilege to serve as a judge and I will gladly volunteer again. What I learn as a judge helps me to be a better Technical Writer and user advocate.
My mind returned to the question of why my user guide did not follow the same layout and design as the legacy user guide. I said that the legacy user guide was written as a reference manual instead of a guide to use the system, which is not helpful to users who want to “use” the system. I pointed to the lack of steps (instructions) to perform tasks, and that the Table of Contents lacked verbs to denote actions. I said that as a member of the Society for Technical Communication, I understand how to write a user guide that will be used by users, not shelved. I asked the client what she thought of the (legacy) user guide. She asked when I could rewrite the legacy user guide to make it match with my user guide.
And that’s how I leveraged my experiences as a competition judge to my work.
If you were a judge in the international or local publication competition—thank you for volunteering. If not, please consider serving; we need good people like you to serve as judges. You'll never get a better opportunity to learn about usability, information design, and product assessment than as a judge.
I’m David Dick and I’m Talking Usability