human-computer interaction perspectives on word processing issues

to page 4 >

By Patricia Sullivan

Highlights

ww

w.oc

stc.

org

May 2003 Vol. 42 No.5

8

10

12

1

3

8

Human-Computer Interaction Perspectives onWord Processing Issues

HCI Perspectives onWord Processing IssuesBy Patricia Sullivan

Meeting InformationTimes and directions

To GoLive or not toGoLiveBy Robert Peterson

Membership NewsBy Julie Dotson

Society Pages

Calendar of EventsMeeting dates

Orange County STC

Word processing has been vigorously studied by those interestedin the field of human-computer interaction. Because it naturally

brings a wide spectrum of new users to the computer and asks thoseusers to adapt their work habits to the machine, word processing hasbeen a testing ground for ideas about learning, about training, aboutdocumentation, and about interface design.

Human-computer interaction researchers want to answer questionsabout how difficult word processing is to learn, about the impact ofuser interface designs on new users, about how educationalmaterials should be constructed and packaged for users, and aboutlearning to compute. These goals are obviously tangential to ours, asthose researchers do not carefully examine, or even much careabout, the quality of the text that users create. Human-computerinteraction researchers measure learning by improvement in theuser’s knowledge of program features, by reduction of errors, and byincreased speed of use rather than by improvement in the quality ofthe writing. But these researchers should not be dismissed out-of-hand, as they have been carefully observing users learning to useword-processing software.

The Contexts of Human-Computer Interaction“Human-computer interaction” is a rather slippery field. Evidence ofits polyglot nature can be found in the fact that not everyone involvedcalls it “human-computer interaction”; some call it “man-machinestudies,” others “computer-human interaction,” and still others“human factors in computing.”

The common ground, however it is labeled, is the building of

computer systems that are moreresponsive to human needs. Itdraws on interdisciplinaryyokings of various fields(industrial engineering, computerscience, cognitive psychology,linguistics, human factors,information science, cognitivescience, and sometimesdocument design and education)in the service of studying theinteraction of people andmachines.

Word-Processing StudiesReflect Their Field’s IssuesTo understand another’s gait, wemust walk in that person’sshoes. This discussionpurposefully casts the talk interms used by researchers inhuman-computer interaction,rather than in technicalcommunication terms, trying tohelp us “hear” their voices sothat we may better read theirliterature.

Word processing studies done inthe 1980s show that the field hasbeen driven by products. Earlystudies defined the key featuresand developed generic ways toevaluate editing and word-processing programs and theirinterfaces. Later, studies beganto focus on training. Astechnology began to developnew interfaces, the studiesbegan to shift back to evaluatingthe new features, with importantnew interest in group

2 TechniScribe May 2003

The TechniScribe is published 11 times a yearas a benefit to the members of the OrangeCounty Chapter of the Society for TechnicalCommunication. The goal of the publication isto reflect the interests, needs, and objectives ofOCSTC members. The TechniScribe strives tobe an advocate for, and an inspiration to,technical communicators by keeping themconnected to each other and to opportunitiesfor professional growth.

Articles published in this newsletter may bereprinted in other STC publications if credit isproperly given and one copy of the reprint issent to the TechniScribe Editor.

Submission Information The editorial teamretains and exercises the right to edit submittedand requested material for clarity, length, andappropriateness.

When submitting material please remember to

• Include a 25-word biography aboutyourself

• Send articles in Word format, RTF (Rich-Text Format), ASCII, or in the body of ane-mail message

• Send material to the [email protected]

Managing Editor Cassandra HearnCopy Editor Barbara YoungCopy Editor & Proofreader Rosemary HulceCopy Editor Anne StratfordCopy Editor James HaendigesProofreader Steve BlossomWeb Version Jeff Randolph

Monthly Advertising Rates 1/4 page $40 •1/3 page $45 • 1/2 page $60 • Full page $80

Subscriptions For one year, $10 to members ofother STC chapters.

Printer Print America, Aliso Viejo, CA

President’s MessageBy Don Pierstorff, OCSTC Chapter President

to page 6 >

Often, we hear from some- one that that personworks in a “circus,” aptlydescribing the atmosphere inthat person’s workplace as sheor he perceives it. Perhapsthose of us who do work in thatcircus should trade in “circus”for another one-word descrip-tion. Many of us, I suspect,

have devoted numerous waking hours to thisvocabularic conundrum. And of course, those of usintrigued by the use of circus cannot help but toperuse Edward Gibbon’s 18th century six-volumework, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,which Gibbon whipped out in a mere 12 years(1776-1788). Those of us who have written propos-als destined for the Department of Defense willquickly acknowledge from grim experience thatGibbon was a fast writer, particularly when he talksabout a particular circus, the one to which theSabines were invited, probably in the 2nd centuryBCE. (Gibbon seems not too sure, but Gibbon hadnot been born, so his academic deficiency in thismatter can be forgiven.) The Sabine men and theirwives were invited, that is, proving the inequity ofthe Roman Empire. If the single women had beeninvited, then the Sabines might still be with us.After all, they lived in a great place, a mountainousarea northeast of Rome. Unfortunately, however,they had warred with the Roman Empire one toomany times. So the Romans entertained them.Alas. Livy, a historian of the day, said that thechariot races were so enthralling that “nobody hadeyes or thoughts for anything else.” So while theSabines watched the races, their unmarriedwomen were abducted by the Romans to be theirwives. Some circus.

So for clearly obvious reasons, we must avoidusing “circus” to describe the atmosphere sur-rounding us while we work. “Rat race” won't workeither.

By now, one can see that we have only one choice,the 2 p.m. choice, the choice that runs through ourminds after hours and hours at the keyboard:urtication in its old sense, that of the flogging of aparalyzed limb with nettles for the stimulatingeffect that it produces. We might have a bit of aproblem collecting enough nettles for all of acompany’s employees, but perhaps we can substi-tute barbed wire, which has the virtue of lastingmuch longer than nettles, thereby saving our

2003 May TechniScribe 3

When: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 from 6:00 to 9:00 P.M.

Where: Wyndham Hotel 3350 Avenue of the Arts Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 751-5100

Cost: Members with reservations $21 Students with reservations $16 Nonmembers with reservations $23 Walk-ins or those registering after deadline $31 No-shows billed $11

Directions to the Wyndham HotelComing from north and central Orange CountySouthbound on I-405, exit at Bristol Blvd. Turn leftonto Bristol Blvd. Turn right onto Anton, left ontoAvenue of the Arts. Turn right into the Wyndhamparking lot.

Please park in the Wyndham Hotel parking struc-ture.

Coming from southern Orange CountyNorthbound on I-405, exit at Bristol. Turn right ontoBristol. Turn right onto Anton, left onto Avenue of theArts. Turn right into the Wyndham parking lot.

Please park in the Wyndham Hotel parking struc-ture.

Next Meeting Editor’s Desk

ReservationsReservations are due by 5:00 P.M., Friday,May 16.

Registration• Register at www.ocstc.org/dinres.asp, or• Call the OCSTC Hotline at (949) 863-7666, or• Call Carolyn Romano at (714) 894-9221. Leave

your name, membership status, and phonenumber.

By Cassandra Hearn, Managing Editor

Writing for a Public AudienceSpeaker: William DuBay We’re nearing the end of

a long and blissfuljourney through a year in theland of TechniScribe. As I ampreparing my transition out ofthe managing editor role, I ambeginning to pass along someresponsibilites to our up-and-coming managing editor.

Next month I’ll introduce you to CarrieDamschroder, who has graciously accepted therenowned TechniScribe challenge. If you havearticles you’d like to have published, or articleideas, please send them to me so we can all worktogether during this transition.

Also, I’d like to offer my apologies at this time toBill Darnall. His article in the April issue, “All AboutContent Management Systems” should have beentitled “Overview of Content ManagementSystems.” Also, as a clarification, Bill is not theauthor of the CMS listserv. We apologizetremendously for these errors.

Special thanks to Escoe Bliss for joining theTechniScribe list of supporters. Check out theEscoe Bliss ad on page eight.

Congratulations to the International CompetitionAward winners! Their entries will be displayed atthe STC’s 50th Annual Conference. Be sure toenter again next year.

International Competition Awards

Distinguished TechnicalCommunicationProtege 2000 User’s GuideDonna Dodd, Warren Ettinger,Vicki Strauss

MeritEPSON Powerlite 720c/730cUser’s Guide KitChris Botelho, Linus Su, Moira Zucker


cooperation and graphics. In a sense, though, thehuman-computer interaction researchersinterested in word processing encourage thetechnological advances as well as the reaction tothem. Their research into developing features(e.g., the use of menus) encouraged designers tomodify designs in certain ways. In a curious way,designers drive the features while the featuresdrive them.

Word processing studies can be classified by thegoals they pursue:

Goal of Improving Training/Education

Goal of Understanding Learning (Skill Acquisition and Modeling)

Goal of Improving User Interface Design

Goal of Evaluating and Developing New Products

These goals, of course, are not mutually exclusive.

Goal of Improving Training/EducationTraining studies have had a place in the human-computer interaction literature primarily becauseword processing is connected to the office.Training studies in human-computer interactiontend to focus on developing online help, computer-based training, manuals, or interface changes asremedies to training problems. One of the mostdiscussed approaches to training is the minimalisttraining approach developed at IBM Watson(Carroll, 1984).

The minimalist approach downplays passiveinstructions and urges active learning. A study ofone minimalist manual (Carroll, Mack, Lewis,Grischkowsky, & Robertson, 1985) reports thesuccess of that manual. The manual urgedexploration through a number of features: lessreading, greater task orientation, more learnerinitiative, more error recovery information, andeasier referencing. Word processing users of theminimalist manual were 40% faster covering thebasic topics, just as good on achievement tests,and better in self-sufficiency tests than users inother training conditions.

In a study of the minimalist interface, Carroll andCarrithers (1984) suggest supplying “trainingwheels” for the interface to make the learning

easier. By blocking inappropriate, complex, andwrong choices, the training wheels interface limitedthe number of possible problems encountered. Itforced new learners to learn the simple actions first(e.g., typing, editing, and printing) while blockingadvanced functions (e.g., data merging,pagination, spell checking, and format changing).The interface study asked 24 learners to use eitherthe training wheels or the commercial system totype and print a simple document. The training-wheels users got started faster, produced betterwork, spent less time on errors, and understoodconcepts better. Thus, the Watson researchersfound the minimalist approach useful in bothhelping the active user and in blocking enoughmistakes to avoid major confusion while the user islearning.

Czaja, Hammond, Blascovich, and Swede (1986)reminded us that word processing is not easy tolearn, though, when they compared three trainingstrategies used with office workers who werelearning WordStar. These researchers found thatcomputer-based training was less effective thanstand-up training or manual-based training. Thepeople learning via the computer-based tutorialtook longer, completed fewer tasks (typing andediting), and made more errors. However, errorsabounded in all conditions. A main finding of thestudy is that a day-long training session is notsufficient to teach people the basic operation ofWordStar.

Goal of Understanding LearningIn this decade, there has been continual study ofhow people learn to use word-processingprograms. A new and “hot” topic is skill transfer.Since 1985, many researchers have been studyinghow difficult it is for people to move to a new word-processing program. But the older themes of howdifficult it is for people to learn word-processingprograms are also robust.

Mack, Lewis, and Carroll (1983) enumerated manylearning difficulties when they used protocols tostudy a number of problems and issues that nowreverberate through the literature: 1) learning isdifficult, 2) learners don’t know how computerswork, 3) learners make up interpretations for whathappens, 4) learners generalize from what theyalready know, 5) learners have trouble followingdirections, 6) problems interact, 7) interfacefeatures are not obvious to learners, 8) “help” doesnot always help. After articulating these problems,Mack et al. discussed possible solutions, pointingout that unaided self-study is not appropriate for

< Word Processing from page 1


novices to learn word processing. People arereluctant to read thick volumes before starting, andthey become too passive when following tutorials.

Goal of Improving User Interface DesignThose who study interface design are interested insolving user problems by changing the softwareitself. Typically, people studying interface designare asking questions such as these: Is there a beststyle of interface? How rigidly do we have to followconventions? What kinds of markers should weuse? Will people be helped if they can see thestructure of the task? The field of interface designhas traditionally favored artistic answers to thesequestions. So, researchers who study interfacedesign face a difficult battle when they argue thatusers know better than the artists.

Goal of Evaluating and Developing NewProductsProduct evaluation aimed at word processingcomes in two varieties: academic and commercial.In academic work, there are tests of emergingfeatures in a class of products (e.g., Gould’s 1981work on the importance of cursor speed to wordprocessing), and also to establish standard ways oftesting both features and whole products. Thecommercial work, found in such magazines asByte, InfoWorld, MacWorld, and PC, developscritiques by taking the major products on themarket and submitting them to comparative tests.

Questions the Two Groups Might ShareThese brief research summaries suggest interestswe technical communicators share withresearchers in human-computer interaction. Weshare curiosities about learning and using word-processing programs and about the developmentof word-processing technology. Indeed, we mightpose a number of common questions.

How quickly and easily do people learn word-processing programs?In general, human-computer interactionresearchers have found learning how to use word-processing software more difficult than theyexpected. It is true that their studies of learningtend to be short-term (mimicking the one- or two-day training session). But these studiesconsistently find that novices have a poorunderstanding of the computer and that they makemany errors.

The question of how to encourage and enablelearning is a lively one. There are many reasons to

think that much work is left to be done. Almost allthe work at IBM Watson, for example, is aimed atenabling learning. Researchers have pursuedstrategies that encourage learners to be active,and to explore, researchers have developedtraining materials that enable and guide. But thework of Singley and Anderson (1987-1988) maychallenge the Watson approach, as they suggestthat, when people “get down to the business oflearning,” they focus on the procedures and soonno longer need the types of guidance beingdeveloped in the minimalist approach.When we add into the equation our interest indeveloping good writing habits and using wordprocessing to produce quality text, the questionbecomes even more lively and less settled.

Will we eventually develop a “best” interface or an“ideal” word-processing technology?Human-computer interaction researchers arealways asking this question and never answeringit. It doesn’t make sense that one complexprogram would be the best program for all people.The group is always comparing features andfunctions and interfaces and programs in anattempt to better articulate “ease of learning” and“ease of use” (two of this group’s watch phrases).Looking for the ideal seems necessary forprogress, even though everyone believes therecan be no ideal in the realm of complex computerprograms.

Human-computer interaction researchers have notposed questions in terms of learning to write or offacilitating good writing habits. If quality of prose orquality of the composition were important to theevaluators, some of their conclusions might bedifferent. Take as an example desktop publishing.PageMaker is consistently judged superior, but itmakes laying out a technical manual arduous.PageMaker is harder to use than other desktoppublishing programs (such as Ventura Publisher)that give control over the precise placement oftext. My point is two-edged: first, that human-computer interaction must be judged on the basisof writing theory and writing process as well asfrom a base of technological sophistication;second, that teaching and researching wordprocessing must incorporate views of those wholook for the best features and programs.

ConclusionThe work in human-computer interaction can helpus think more carefully about the characteristics oflearning word processing and of using particular


Administrative Council

OCSTCP.O. Box 28751Santa Ana, CA 92799-8751Chapter Hotline: (949) 863-7666

Chapter Fax: (949) 830-7585Web site: http://www.ocstc.org

Chapter Contacts

Don Pierstorff, [email protected]

Elaine Randolph, Immediate Past [email protected]

Jack Molisani, 1st VP [email protected]

Julie Dotson, 2nd VP [email protected]

Bruce Alexander, [email protected]

Jenise Cook-Crabbe, [email protected]

Cassandra Hearn, TechniScribe [email protected]

Julie Atkins, Public [email protected]

Ann Shogren, Education

Mary Ann Howell, Nominating [email protected]

Kathey Schuster, Nominating [email protected]

Dennis Hanrahan, Nominating [email protected]

Mark Bloom, Nominating [email protected]

Arlyn Lee, Nominating [email protected]

Carolyn Romano, [email protected]

Virginia Janzig, [email protected]

Bonni Graham, Region 8 [email protected]

Jeff Randolph, Employment [email protected]

word-processing programs. But it does not give us allthe answers. Even though we can articulate questionsof interest to both fields, the researchers in human-computer interaction do not have the answers to ourresearch questions because their research does notfocus on the writing process or writing quality. Indeed,they could profit from a better understanding of howthe task and the skill interact with the person learningto use a word-processing program. Such anunderstanding would enhance their work: They couldfocus on quality of product as well as efficiency of use.

A knowledge of work in human-computer interactioncan help us with a major question underlying manystudies: How much of the change in writing habits isdue to the technology? Currently, that question isnormally intertwined with the question of teachingmethod and milieu. A better understanding of theliterature in human-computer interaction can help ussort out how the technology itself interacts with thewriting process, because this literature has preciseand workable ways of talking about the functioningcomponents of the technology. Studies like those giveus ways to think about whether differences between astudy using WordStar and a study using MacWrite canbe thought of as differences in interface style andprogram complexity. Such an injection of reason abouttechnology can certainly aid technical communicatorssorting out how computers influence the teaching andlearning of writing.

This article was reprinted from Computers andComposition 6(3), August 1989, pages 11-33. PatriciaSullivan teaches at Purdue University in WestLafayette, Indiana. It has been edited for length andTechniScribe style.

< Word Processing continued

< President's Message continued

companies’ money, and of being easy to grow. Kansas,for example, abounds with barbed wire. As doesTexas.

Any option beats the Bourbon Syndrome of yore, whenemployees awakened early in the morning, still in theircars, still parked in their companies’ parking lots, readyone more time for another urticative day.

Come see something new and exciting from eHelp Corporationat STC 50th Annual Conference, Booth #201

RoboHelp – The Industry Standardin Help Authoring

www.ehelp.comVBPJ

2000

The RoboHelp Family of Products Has Won Over 55 Industry Awards — More Than All Other Help Tools Combined!

®

RoboHelp is the leading Help authoring tool for easily developing professionalHelp systems for Windows and Web-based applications, including .NET.

• Work in the powerful built-in HTML editor, Microsoft® Word, or any other popular editor such as FrontPage® or Dreamweaver®

• Leverage existing content in Word, FrameMaker®, HTML, and existing Help projects

• Generate Help systems in any popular Help format, plus professional-quality printeddocumentation, all from one source project

• Use WebHelp format to create Help systems that run on any browser and any platform

• Easily create standard and advanced Help features, including a table of contents, index,glossary, topics, graphics, special effects, and more

• Enjoy true single sourcing capability, including powerful conditional text

• Easily create context-sensitive Help

• Merge multiple, independent projects into one Help system (no server required)*

*Available as add-on module to RoboHelp Office

Now with NEW.NET Support!

Call 800-281-8216 or download a FREE trial at www.ehelp.com/stc

RoboHelp X3 is

one of the most

exciting upgrades

we’ve seen

from eHelp.

Craig Clarke,Technical WriterHelp Solutions, Ltd.

“

”

http://www.ehelp.com/stc/


To GoLive or not to GoLiveBy Robert Peterson, STC MemberBy Julie Dotson, OCSTC 2nd VP Membership

Is Adobe’s Web authoring tool your best choice? Adobe GoLive version 5.0, released in 2000,made a good run at the market served byMacromedia’s Dreamweaver, but GoLive version 6(February 2002) is better than Dreamweaver 4.0 inmany ways.

Though Dreamweaver MX may take certainWYSIWYG HTML editing features a step furtherthan GoLive 6.0, GoLive remains a safe choice forclean coding and total Web-site management.

According to Kim Wimpsett, a writer forCNET.com’s software reviews, “With AdobeGoLive 6.0, Adobe has produced one stellardevelopment tool. Its HTML editingtools and WYSIWYG interface are accessible andpowerful enough to build even the most complexsites, and if you use other Adobe applications,you’ll appreciate GoLive’s solid integration withthose apps. In addition, GoLive’s fantastic sitemanagement tool (Web Workgroup Server) makesthis program ideal for professional developersworking on medium-sized to large corporatesites.”—“Adobe GoLive 6.0,” CNET.com,March 14, 2002

CNET also honored GoLive 6.0 with an Editors’Choice award, which it gives to high-qualitycomputing products after careful evaluation by apanel of experts.

GoLive vs. DreamweaverThe department of Academic and AdministrativeDocuments (AAD) at Arizona State Universityevaluated GoLive 6.0 and Dreamweaver 4.0 forpotential use with ASU’s Policies and ProceduresManuals Web site, www.asu.edu/aad/manuals.

During the evaluation, it became clear that the twoWYSIWYG editors, in general, are comparable.For educational institutions, however, multiplelicenses of GoLive can be purchased at asignificantly lower cost than licenses ofDreamweaver. In addition, GoLive 6.0’s WebWorkgroup Server and Adobe’s LiveMotion 2.0,bundled with GoLive 6.0, made GoLive the obviouschoice for AAD.

For private organizations, the choice is not soclear. Both GoLive and Dreamweaver offer virtuallythe same benefits, are in the same price range,and have received comparable third-party softwarereviews. The main advantage of GoLive 6.0 over

Membership News

The STC office has sadly reported that the OCSTC has officially decreased in size by 92.

This is not the biggest drop OCSTC has ever had,but is sure is a little disheartening. If you look at thenumbers, we are still doing a bit better than STCoverall. Internationally, there was a drop of 5409members (23.80%), and the OCSTC has droppedby 22.25%.

On the brighter side, we have new members towelcome to our chapter: William Barden, LizaGazmen, William Simms, Darryl Tahirali, RebeccaTappy and Sharon Wilmovsky. Please introduceyourself to these fine new members at our nextchapter meeting!

Membership Count:

Orange County Chapter324

International Society17,321


Dreamweaver 4.0 is Adobe’s WebDAV-enabledWeb Workgroup Server, but this may not be adeciding factor for companies using VisualSourceSafe or other WebDAV-related programs.

Other GoLive benefits (already included withGoLive 5.0) include the following:

Search Functions• Search for ways to optimize Web-site

navigation, that is, search for files that are “n”clicks away from another Web page to find waysto reduce the number of intermediate linksbetween pages.

• Search for Web-site files by file size,modification date, download time, or commonsyntax errors.

• Search for specific links, colors, fonts,addresses, etc.

• Save searches for future use.

Graphics and Animation• Resize and optimize native Adobe PhotoShop

files without leaving the application.

• Import PhotoShop layers as HTML.

• Jump to Adobe PhotoShop, Illustrator, orLiveMotion files using “Smart Object Links” tomake modifications and automatically find thechanges to GoLive when saved.

• Edit links inside native PDF, QuickTime, andMacromedia Flash documents without using thenative application.

Browser PreviewPreview how pages are displayed in variousbrowsers without leaving the application. GoLive6.0 comes with default style sheet settings forInternet Explorer 4.0 (Windows or Macintoshoperating systems) and Netscape Navigator 4.0(Windows or Mac), and others can be created.

Dreamweaver, conversely, features a handy “CleanUp Microsoft Word HTML” command and an XML-based, fully customizable tag database.Dreamweaver MX features an array of additionalbenefits such as XML editing and validation; aconvenient reference panel for cascading style

sheets, HTML, JavaScript and other technologies;and Cold Fusion support.

Kim Wimpsett reports, “Dreamweaver’s thoroughColdFusion, ASP, and JSP support gives it a slightedge over our former favorite, Adobe GoLive.Based on our look at Beta 3, we recommendDreamweaver (MX) for building a heavy-dutycommercial Web site (but not for casual Webbuilders). However, beware; we findDreamweaver’s busy (new) interface daunting.”—“Macromedia Dreamweaver MX,” CNET.com,April 30, 2002.

Decision TimeThe release of Dreamweaver MX has complicatedthe decision to buy GoLive. No clear advantagecan be inferred from online reviews and ratings ofDreamweaver 4, the Beta 3 version ofDreamweaver MX, and GoLive 6. Both editors areequally priced and require comparable computerhardware.

The best advice we can infer from Web expertreviews and third-party software ratings is topurchase the product that best suits the softwarecurrently used. That is, if you use Fireworks andFreehand, buy Dreamweaver. If you use AdobePhotoShop and Illustrator, buy GoLive. If nothingelse, by sticking with the same family of softwareyou increase the likelihood that features such asGoLive’s Smart Objects Links, which are designedto facilitate integration with other Adobe software,will function properly.

For additional information, visitwww.macromedia.comwww.adobe.com

For detailed third-party software ratings, view thisarticle online at www.ocstc.org.

ColophonThe TechniScribe was produced using AdobePageMaker 6.52 for PC. Zapf Humanist andHumanist521 were used for text and headingfonts.

All original art work was created using AdobeIllustrator 9.0. The PDF on the OCSTC website was distilled from an EPS using AcrobatDistiller 5.0.

< To GoLive or not to GoLive continued

http://www.macromedia.com

http://www.adobe.com


Society Pages

STC Mission StatementDesigning the Future of Technical Communication.

Positioning StatementSTC helps you design effective communication fora technical world through information sharing andindustry leadership.

The Society for Technical Communication (STC) isthe world’s largest organization for technical com-municators. Its more than 20,000 members includewriters, editors, illustrators, printers, publishers,photographers, educators, and students.

Dues are $115 per year, plus a one-time enrollmentfee. Membership is open to anyone engaged insome phase of technical communication, interestedin the arts and sciences of technical communication,and in allied arts and sciences.

STC headquarters contact information:

Society for Technical Communication901 N. Stuart StreetSuite 904Arlington, VA 22203-1854

TechniScribe Copyright and TrademarkStatementOCSTC invites writers to submit articles that theywish to be considered for publication. By submit-ting an article, you implicitly grant a license to printthe article in this newsletter, and for other STCpublications to reprint the article without expresspermission. Copyright is held by the writer. In yourcover letter, please let the editor know if this articlehas been published elsewhere and if it has beensubmitted for consideration to other publications.

Unless otherwise noted, copyrights for all newslet-ter articles belong to the author. The design andlayout of this newsletter are © STC, 2003.

Some articles might refer to companies or prod-ucts whose names are covered by a trademark orregistered trademark. All trademarks are theproperty of their respective owners. Reference to aspecific product does not constitute an endorse-ment of the product by OCSTC or by STC.


Society Pages

OCSTC Employment InformationBy Jeff Randolph, OCSTC Employment Manager

Our job listing is entirely online at the OCSTCWeb site, and the pages are updated as jobs aresubmitted.Staff Jobswww.ocstc.org/employme.asp

Contract Jobswww.ocstc.org/contractme.asp

If you have an inquiry or a job to post, e-mail JeffRandolph at [email protected].

A limited number of printed copies of the OCSTCWeb site listings are available at monthly chaptermeetings.Society Level Job ListingsSTC maintains job listings on the Internet. You candownload the listings from the STC Web site atwww.stc.org/jobdatabase.htm

OCSTC Mailing AddressP.O. Box 28751Santa Ana, CA 92799-8751(949) 863-7666 (recording)

Address Service Requested

NONPROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDSANTA ANA, CA

PERMIT NO. 1767

Postage Due Trust Acct. No. 999231Santa Ana P&DC, CA 92799-9702

Calendar of EventsMay 6 Administrative Council Meeting, 5:45 P.M., ProSpring Inc.

May 20 OCSTC Chapter Meeting, 6:00 P.M., Wyndham Hotel

May Meeting Topic: Writing for a Public AudiencePresented by William DuBay

A large, general audience requires some special attention to reading levels.Theaverage reading level of adults in the U.S. is 7th grade. That means half thepopulation reads at a level under that. Because adults read comfortably at twogrades below their actual reading level, experts recommend writing at the 5th-grade level for public audiences. Not writing at the correct reading level can loselarge portions of your audience. How does one do that? How can you be sure?What is a “reading level” anyway?

Today, there is an increasing demand for documents, forms, applications, notices,and procedures in plain language, often written at a certain grade level. Having theskill to write these will greatly add to you and your organization’s effectiveness.

Put on your thinking caps and sharpen your pencils. This presentation will make you a better writer.

Bill DuBay is a senior member of the Orange County chapter. Currently, he conducts writing workshops inplain language.