4
144 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 47, NO. 2, JUNE 2004 Material Culture Analysis and Technical Communication: The Artifact Approach to Evaluating Documentation Interface —Feature by ALEXANDER THAYER Index Terms—Document analysis, material culture analysis, Prown, J. D., usability. As professional writers, we want to know whether our readers find our writing to be instructional, useful, and ultimately satisfactory as a guide to the subject we are describing. Unfortunately, our mental and emotional proximity to our work can hinder our objectivity, making the editing and review processes challenging as we attempt to defend the aspects of our texts that we consider important. As a complementary step in the writing process, we can conduct usability testing. From the author’s perspective, usability testing provides a rigorous, user-centered way to check the effectiveness of a set of documentation. However, usability tests are not always possible, particularly in smaller organizations or during projects with tight deadlines. When the documentation review process bogs down and usability testing is impossible, we might approach the situation using a method from the field of art history. Art historians who study ancient societies frequently rely on material culture analysis as a way to piece together the cultural context that produced specific art objects. In his seminal discussion on the topic, Prown defines material culture analysis as “the study through artifacts of the beliefs—values, ideas, attitudes, and assumptions—of a particular community or society at a given time” [1, p. 18]. According to Prown, the idea behind material culture analysis is to look at an artifact from the perspective of a cultural outsider (someone who is not a member of the culture from which the artifact came), and then to decipher the underlying values of the original culture. Professional communicators may already perform a version of this task. When reviewing a technical specification document, for example, we may try to decipher the hidden meanings and assumptions present in that specification. Material culture analysis codifies this process, allowing us to identify potential value clashes between our audience and the community that produced the documentation. Manuscript received October 29, 2003; revised January 23, 2004. The author is with the Department of Technical Communication, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 USA (email: [email protected]). IEEE DOI 10.1109/TPC.2003.828209 The process of material culture analysis consists of three main steps: description, deduction, and speculation. I include an example of how art historians typically conduct the analysis process. Next, I show how Prown’s methodology applies to professional communication by analyzing a technical manual. ILLUSTRATING THE STEPS OF MATERIAL CULTURE ANALYSIS To illustrate how these stages of analysis work, I provide an (abbreviated) example of a typical material culture analysis of a historical artifact (a Native American arrowhead). Description: Substance and Form Consid- ered Found among the remains of a Native American village in Colorado, this particular arrowhead is approximately 1.5 long, 0.75 wide, and 0.5 thick. The arrowhead is made of stone, possibly flint, and weighs about one ounce. There is a small notch at the base of the arrowhead, presumably where the head was attached to the shaft of an arrow. Overall, this arrowhead shows a significant amount of time in production: the strokes required to strike the original stone down to its present shape are symmetrical and result in a sharp bit of stone. Native Americans used arrowheads as hunting tools, and they rarely decorated their arrowheads. However, the even strike pattern of the arrowhead, combined with the slight vein of color running through the rock itself, lend it an attractive appearance for an article of weaponry. Deduction: Physical Engagement and Emotional Response The arrowhead is very light and extremely sharp: I nearly cut myself when I first picked it up. Feeling this artifact, I can understand how easily it would have pierced the hide of a deer or bison during the hunt. The notch at the base is less sharp, and there are two grooves where the binding around the original arrow shaft has lightly worn down the flint. This arrowhead is impressive, in part because of the combination of its small size and high level of craftsmanship. The precision of the strikes needed to 0361-1434/04$20.00 © 2004 IEEE

Material culture analysis and technical communication: the artifact approach to evaluating documentation

  • Upload
    a

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Material culture analysis and technical communication: the artifact approach to evaluating documentation

144 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 47, NO. 2, JUNE 2004

Material Culture Analysis and Technical Communication:

The Artifact Approach to Evaluating Documentation

Interface—Feature by

ALEXANDER THAYER

Index Terms—Document analysis, material culture analysis, Prown, J. D., usability.

As professional writers, we want to know whetherour readers find our writing to be instructional,useful, and ultimately satisfactory as a guide tothe subject we are describing. Unfortunately, ourmental and emotional proximity to our work canhinder our objectivity, making the editing and reviewprocesses challenging as we attempt to defend theaspects of our texts that we consider important. Asa complementary step in the writing process, wecan conduct usability testing. From the author’sperspective, usability testing provides a rigorous,user-centered way to check the effectiveness of a setof documentation. However, usability tests are notalways possible, particularly in smaller organizationsor during projects with tight deadlines.

When the documentation review process bogs downand usability testing is impossible, we might approachthe situation using a method from the field of arthistory. Art historians who study ancient societiesfrequently rely on material culture analysis as a wayto piece together the cultural context that producedspecific art objects. In his seminal discussion on thetopic, Prown defines material culture analysis as“the study through artifacts of the beliefs—values,ideas, attitudes, and assumptions—of a particularcommunity or society at a given time” [1, p. 18].

According to Prown, the idea behind material cultureanalysis is to look at an artifact from the perspectiveof a cultural outsider (someone who is not a memberof the culture from which the artifact came), andthen to decipher the underlying values of the originalculture. Professional communicators may alreadyperform a version of this task. When reviewinga technical specification document, for example,we may try to decipher the hidden meanings andassumptions present in that specification. Materialculture analysis codifies this process, allowing us toidentify potential value clashes between our audienceand the community that produced the documentation.

Manuscript received October 29, 2003; revised January 23,2004. The author is with the Department of TechnicalCommunication, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195USA (email: [email protected]).

IEEE DOI 10.1109/TPC.2003.828209

The process of material culture analysis consistsof three main steps: description, deduction, andspeculation. I include an example of how arthistorians typically conduct the analysis process.Next, I show how Prown’s methodology applies toprofessional communication by analyzing a technicalmanual.

ILLUSTRATING THE STEPS OF MATERIAL CULTUREANALYSIS

To illustrate how these stages of analysis work, Iprovide an (abbreviated) example of a typical materialculture analysis of a historical artifact (a NativeAmerican arrowhead).

Description: Substance and Form Consid-ered Found among the remains of a Native Americanvillage in Colorado, this particular arrowhead isapproximately 1.500 long, 0.7500 wide, and 0.500 thick.The arrowhead is made of stone, possibly flint, andweighs about one ounce. There is a small notch atthe base of the arrowhead, presumably where thehead was attached to the shaft of an arrow. Overall,this arrowhead shows a significant amount of time inproduction: the strokes required to strike the originalstone down to its present shape are symmetrical andresult in a sharp bit of stone.

Native Americans used arrowheads as hunting tools,and they rarely decorated their arrowheads. However,the even strike pattern of the arrowhead, combinedwith the slight vein of color running through the rockitself, lend it an attractive appearance for an articleof weaponry.

Deduction: Physical Engagement and EmotionalResponse The arrowhead is very light and extremelysharp: I nearly cut myself when I first picked it up.Feeling this artifact, I can understand how easily itwould have pierced the hide of a deer or bison duringthe hunt. The notch at the base is less sharp, andthere are two grooves where the binding around theoriginal arrow shaft has lightly worn down the flint.

This arrowhead is impressive, in part because ofthe combination of its small size and high level ofcraftsmanship. The precision of the strikes needed to

0361-1434/04$20.00 © 2004 IEEE

Page 2: Material culture analysis and technical communication: the artifact approach to evaluating documentation

THAYER: MATERIAL CULTURE ANALYSIS AND TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION 145

produce this arrowhead make me wonder how longit took to produce.

Speculation: Hypotheses and Testing Based onthe information collected in the description anddeduction stages, I believe the culture that producedthis arrowhead valued certain aesthetic qualitiesin their hunting implements. One theory stemmingfrom the seemingly high level of craftsmanship isthat these arrowheads were used for more than justhunting. Perhaps the “best” arrowheads (however theNative Americans defined quality) were used as a typeof currency.

To test this theory, I suggest discussing these findingswith the experts who study the particular NativeAmerican nation that created this arrowhead. Furtherfield research might also uncover additional artifactsthat could expand or refute the theory I propose.

APPLYING THE METHODOLOGY TODOCUMENTATION

The first step, the description stage, comprises threesubsteps:

• substantial analysis—“a descriptive physicalinventory of the object” includes the physicaldimensions, material, and the construction [1,p. 24];

• content analysis—the subject matter of theartifact;

• formal analysis—the visual character of theartifact.

These three forms of examination might seem moreclosely related to visual or artistic analysis rather thantextual or technical analysis. However, this initialfocus on the visual elements is precisely why materialculture analysis is potentially valuable to professionalcommunicators: by beginning the analysis in thismanner, writers may remove themselves from the roleof creation more easily. The writer is repositionedin a role like that of an audience member, of aconsumer rather than a producer, of content. In thisway, writers can begin to understand how audiencemembers might perceive the documentation.

The second step, the deduction stage, includes thefollowing steps:

• sensory engagement—how does it feel to touchand/or lift the object?

• intellectual engagement—how and for whatpurpose was the artifact used? [1, p. 25]

• emotional response—what emotions does theobject trigger?

Through deduction, the description stage results areconverted into emotional and intellectual reactions.When the writer performs this step, his or herreactions may more closely approximate the authenticreactions of the audience members who must use thedocumentation.

The final stage in the analysis process is thespeculation stage, which has two steps:

• theory and hypothesis development—what largerconclusions can I make about this artifact andthe cultural values that informed its creation?

• research program creation—how will I validatemy theories and hypotheses?

The speculation stage is necessary in material cultureanalyses because art historians and archaeologistsfrequently deal with decontextualized artifacts,such as ancient cookware or fragmentary remainsof weapons, that lack contemporary descriptions.With regard to documentation analysis, this stageproduces a hypothetical evaluation of the documentdesigner’s motives; this evaluation ultimatelyinforms the process of redesigning and rewriting thedocumentation.

APPLYING PROWNIAN ANALYSIS

To illustrate how a Prownian analysis might apply todocumentation, I include the following example of amaterial culture analysis. I analyze a printed manualdescribing how to install and use a broadbandconnection router (I withhold the model name toprotect the anonymity of the manufacturer). I usedthis manual when I attempted to set up the routerhardware. This analysis follows the same stages asthe previous example; however, I give the speculativestage additional space here because the results of thatstage are the most meaningful result of a materialculture analysis that looks at documentation.

Description: Substance and Form Considered Thesubstance of this piece of documentation is grayscaleink on paper, although the electronic versioncomprises digitally based information presented ona computer screen. This manual accompanies thepurchase of a specific piece of computer hardware (anetwork router, in this case). The manual is relativelysmall (5.500 wide by 8.500 tall per page). The reasonfor the size seems to be the need to fit this manualinto the relatively small space inside the hardwarepackaging. The covers are a bit glossy and a bit thickerthan the rest of the paper, although the differencein paper weight and quality is very small. Althoughthese initial observations may seem simplistic, theyinitiate the process of writer distancing and will helpsupport the theories that I develop after I gather all ofthe necessary information.

The manual describes the specific processes relatedto installing and configuring this router; someinformation is general, while other information isrouter-specific (which ethernet cable to use betweenthe router and broadband modem, for example). Thecontent follows the standard book format: chapterswith descriptive headings and page numbers.

The linear presentation of the information appearsto follow the general installation pattern of therouter itself: Chapter 1 introduces the router and

Page 3: Material culture analysis and technical communication: the artifact approach to evaluating documentation

146 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 47, NO. 2, JUNE 2004

its components; Chapter 2 helps the reader planhis or her network setup; Chapter 3 leads thereader through the setup process, and so forth. Thisstructure leads to a large amount of content (over40% of the total page count) being contained in onechapter (Chapter 6 of 7 total chapters). There is noindex (which later proves significant because manypeople choose to look up specific terms in the index).

Deduction: Physical Engagement and EmotionalResponse People interact with documentation in twoways: (1) visually, they read documentation and try tointerpret its meaning, and (2) physically, as they tryto perform the tasks described in the documentation,whether on a computer, with tools, or in some otherway. With regard to this particular manual, I wouldhave preferred a manual that stayed open to aspecific page while laying flat on a table. Setting upthe hardware (plugging everything in correctly) andthe software (progressing through the setup wizard)was more difficult because I could not refer to thecorresponding page in the manual as I worked. Themanual kept flipping shut whenever I placed it downto work on the computer.

This manual attempts to describe how to set up abroadband connection router, which is within myrealm of technical ability. However, as I read thedocumentation, I began to think of a few questionsthat I would ask the writers. For example, why doI need to install the software before I install thehardware? Why must I use the blue Ethernet cable?Aren’t all ethernet cables identical? What if I alreadyhave a router, and I simply want to use this router asa wireless access point?

Although I successfully set up my router, I had anemotional response to the documentation each time Iencountered a word I did not understand. Terms suchas NAT and DMZ forced me to check the manual’sglossary more than once. Although a glossary ishelpful, inline definitions are potentially more useful.Without an index, it was not possible to develop aclear sense of their meanings in context. I believenovice computer users, particularly those users whoare unfamiliar with computer networking vocabulary,may have a much stronger emotional response tothese new terms.

Speculation: Hypotheses and Testing As a resultof the previous two stages, I am prepared to developtheories about at least two aspects of this document:why there is no index, and why the page counts varysignificantly between chapters.

I typically look for an index to find a specific wordor phrase. Unfortunately, this router manual has noindex. As a professional communicator, I can think ofa number of possible reasons why this router manuallacks an index.

• The writers did not have the time, money, ornecessary expertise to make an index.

• The manual length was constrained too tightly toallow for an index.

• The writers considered the manual to be usableenough without an index or that adding an indexwas unnecessary or redundant with the table ofcontents, for example.

• The content lacked a sufficient number ofindexable terms or was unnecessary.

Any combination of these reasons (or another reason)might explain why the manual lacks an index. Ofcourse, these reasons did not comfort me when I triedto set up the router. As a reader, I was a bit frustratedby the missing index.

If I was the author of this manual, I could approximatethis frustration using material culture analysis. Bylooking at the manual from the user’s perspectiveand by applying my knowledge as a professionalcommunicator, I could do any of the following threethings: create the bulleted list above and determinehow to calm those readers who prefer indices; pointout that the document is short enough to make anindex relatively useless; or create an index. Materialculture analysis assists in clarifying these issuesearly in the documentation process rather than afterthe product released.

As I attempted to set up my router, I noticed the pagecounts were quite different among the chapters inthis manual. Of the seven chapters in the manual,Chapter 6 (titled “Configuring”) contains over 46% ofthe content, while the next largest chapter containsless than 12% of the total content. Again, as aprofessional communicator I can think of a number ofpossible reasons why Chapter 6 contains a relativelylarge amount of content.

• Configuring the router is very challenging andrequires a great deal of explanation.

• There are many ways to configure the routerdepending on other factors, which means manypotential procedures must be documented.

• The writers included more detail in this chapterfor another reason (they found the informationdifficult to convey briefly, etc.).

The person or team of people who wrote this manualmight consider Chapter 6 to be the most importantchapter and, therefore, worthy of the highest pagecount. However, as an analyst, I see this chapter isout of balance, slightly bloated, or inaccessible. Couldthe writer(s) have used an alternate organizationalstructure that separated this chapter into a fewsmaller, more readable chapters without increasingthe overall page count? Or did the size and shapeof the documentation constrain the page count incertain ways that necessitated one large chapter onrouter configuration? As I read Chapter 6, I wonderedwhether I needed all of that information to configurethe router, particularly since the router softwareincludes a setup wizard.

Page 4: Material culture analysis and technical communication: the artifact approach to evaluating documentation

THAYER: MATERIAL CULTURE ANALYSIS AND TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION 147

Chapter 6 also contains fewer graphics than otherchapters, notably Chapters 1 and 2. Could someof the text in Chapter 6 have been illustrated inconceptual terms? Would the increased presence ofgraphics have made this chapter seem shorter? Theseare the sorts of questions that a material cultureanalysis can expose. Without a formal, analytical lookat the documentation as an artifact, these questionsmight never be asked.

ADDING VALUE TO DOCUMENTATION

The final step in a material culture analysis of adocumentation set is to develop a summary of thefindings and share them with the original writers.These findings might resemble the questions Iincluded in this section, or they might list the theoriesI proposed about the underlying values and beliefs ofthe manual’s authors. The revision process shouldthen proceed based on how the authors respond tomy questions and theories.

Without a material culture analysis, the evaluatedmanual would (and indeed did) reach publicationwith several potential usability flaws. If the manual’sauthors had performed and/or considered the resultsof a material culture analysis, they may have, forexample, addressed problems in the glossary or thelack of an index, the unbalanced structure of Chapter6, the lack of illustrations in that chapter, and so on.

Ultimately, the material culture analysis leads to oneof the most fundamental questions of any reader:“Why am I using this manual at all?” If I am unableto find the necessary information once too often,or if I cannot understand the content, I will quitreading. If I think the tasks are easily performed,I might disregard the manual entirely. The goalof any piece of documentation is to help readersaccomplish a task that would otherwise be difficult orimpossible to perform. The biggest possible failure ofthe documentation and of its writers happens whenaudience members stop reading.

Documentation as a whole has gained a notoriousreputation among many frustrated people. Those of

us who have tried to use a manual to program a VCRclock, assemble a bicycle, or even build a Lego toy oran IKEA desk know that documentation can create astrong emotional response. It is up to the authors toprevent users from throwing the documentation awayin disgust.

CONCLUSION

If your organization lacks the funds to conductusability testing or hire an editor, the material cultureanalysis process can help you expose the hiddenvalues and assumptions in your writing. For example,you might unintentionally favor PC users over Appleusers in a document that is meant to serve both setsof users. If you use a PC at work and at home, thissort of subtle bias might escape your attention untilyou decide to examine the documentation objectively.The process of material culture analysis helps youestablish this objectivity toward your own writing,which is a valuable skill to have given the tightdeadlines of the computer industry. Even if you havethe resources for usability testing, material cultureanalysis lets you streamline the documentation beforeyou show it to your users.

Further research is needed in the application ofmaterial culture analysis to our work as professionalcommunicators. For example, we could develop aset of metrics that might measure a document interms of its cultural bias (PC users versus Appleusers, for example), or in terms of its lasting abilityto perform its task (use of HTML Help rather thanPDF or print, for example). These metrics could bebased on the tangible elements of documentation(its content and appearance) and on the values thatshape the author’s “voice.” Although we frequently tryto establish a somewhat neutral voice when we writedocumentation, we can use the process of materialculture analysis to interrogate our writing in waysthat uncover our deeper assumptions and values withrespect to the subject matter. Once confronted withthese assumptions and values, we can compare themwith the values and needs of our audience membersand then revise our work accordingly.

REFERENCES

[1] J. D. Prown, “Mind in matter: An introduction to material culture theory and method,” in Material Life inAmerica, 1600–1860, R. B. St. George, Ed. Boston, MA: Northeastern Univ. Press, 1988, pp. 17–38.

Alexander Thayer is a graduate student in the Department of Technical Communication at the University of Washington, Seattle,

where his interest areas include digital gaming, international uses of technologies, and sports as a path of cultural inquiry. He

formerly served as an Information Designer at IBM, where he developed a documentation interface that garnered a patent.