Circuit design presentation

Designing Procedural Information for User Manuals: A Case Study with Circuit Graphics

Debopriyo Roy Associate Professor, University of Aizu

Complexity in Instructions Design

In traditional instructional design, information designers create

instructions with the whole assembly context in mind, while the readers have a smaller context; only being able to follow the instructions in the designer’s chosen order and content presentation (text + graphics).

Problem with Complex Machine Instructions:

1. Multiple components involved (additions and change across subassembly).

2. Multiple Subassembly shown.

3. Different camera angles shown (body-centered, object-centered).

A problem arises due to inconsistency between the information designer’s and the reader’s mental models (Norman, 1983).

Technical Communication Laboratory

Pictorial Circuit Design

Pictorial Diagram is a simplified diagram which shows the various components of a system (motorcycle, car, ship, electronic devices, airplane, etc) without regard to their physical location, how the wiring is marked, or how the wiring is routed. It does, however, show you the sequence in which the components are connected.


Pictorial and Schematic Styles of Circuit Diagrams

A pictorial circuit diagram uses simple images of components, while a schematic diagram shows the components of the circuit as simplified standard symbols; both types show the connections between the devices, including power and signal connections.


Focus

Readers need to understand the context of text and graphics for any complicated procedural task.

Process graphics/text show procedural task when the action elements (instruments, hand motion, arrow for motion, direction etc) are involved. Outcome graphics/text show the result of that action without involvement of action elements. This is unlike animations.

Technical research questions:

The extent to which text as aid is understandable?

Can readers differentiate between process and outcome graphics as aid?

Do readers understand and coordinate text-graphics information at each sub-assembly level?

Do readers understand the visual context, independent of configuration and task sequence?

Can readers make transitions between subassemblies, independent of text?


Graphical Issues in Circuit Design - A Circuit Diagram

Process-Outcome Graphics

Process Graphics


Outcome Graphics

Sequence and Sub-assembly


Implications in ESP Context

In a hardware engineering-based course, would readers be able to understand complex designs and circuits graphically?

To what extent would they be able to understand complex graphics in a minimalist design set-up?

Would they be able to understand the supporting general text instructions written in English? (procedures)

Would they understand complex geometrical functions and logical design explained in English?


Advanced Technical Writing Course

Focus on the Graphical Design Elements

Assignments should focus on providing supporting text to

complex procedural graphics

Comprehending and matching tasks for text-graphics

coordination.

Understanding the placement of text and graphics in a local and

global context.


A Typical Assignment in Technical Writing

Read the technical article on circuit design.

Identify the sentences/phrases in the text which explains a procedure.

Identify the sentences/phrases in the text which explains an outcome of a procedure.

Identify the sentence/paragraph which is shown in the process and outcome graphics.

Write a sentence on your own to explain each graphic you see in the article.

Identify the process, process-outcome and outcome graphics.


Few Assessment Criteria with Usability Perspectives

Structural Information

Functional Information

Conditional Information

Declarative Information

Sequence Comprehension

Information Scanning ability

Ability for Text-Graphics coordination

Ability to develop context-specific usage


Research Question and Hypotheses

Is it possible for users to understand text which explain process versus outcome orientation?

Is it possible for users to understand graphics which explain process versus outcome orientation?

Hypothesis: Based on research (Sharp, 2001), readers perform better with process graphics than with outcome graphics. However (based on previous findings on a similar context [Roy, 2006]), when text and graphics are presented in coordination, readers perform equally well

with both process and outcome graphics.


Methods

25 students in an undergraduate (junior-level) technical writing course were

tested as part of a pilot study.

A survey was handed out after an initial screening of the students’ ability to

identify procedural information.

Each participant was tested with 8 text-visual matching tasks each on the

category of process, process-outcome and outcome graphics.

Readers spent time reading basic circuit graphics articles before starting with the

experiment.

Readers were given the chance to read about the experimental case study and

check the process as part of an animation.


Test Instruments

Each category had 8 matching tasks. Each task had a text and graphic. The three categories are identified as Type#1 (process), Type#2 (process-outcome) and Type#3 (outcome). Readers did not know how the material was organized.

For each text support (one sentence each) (inside a type), readers had to match the text with a suitable graphics. For each matching task, readers also had to identify whether it is a process, process-outcome or outcome graphics.

Each text and graphics were chosen as a coordination from articles/text on circuit design literature (from Google Scholar). Text for each graphic, was written to demonstrate the process/outcome orientation (ignoring other details).

Each matching task had 1 point assigned to it as score. For each type users could have maximum of 8 points.

All introductory level articles/materials were used for the survey. Readers were given a chance to familiarize themselves with the material that had the text-graphics choices published.


Task Design - How to Make a Printed Circuit Board (Presented Sequentially)

Task Design (Mouse Trap Chip)

This sequence of pictures illustrate how the servo door can be constructed. Our first prototype mouse trap used a door made of an old credit card. The plastic is easy to shape using scissors. This first picture shows the underside of the door. Notice there are no screws protruding through the plastic, the bracket is glued to it. This is so the door can be flush against the opening to the trap when closed.

The fitting that attaches to the servo came with the servo with 6 points, or stars. I cut 5 points off leaving one to mount to the bracket with a small #4-40 screw and nut. Cutting the unwanted stars is up to you.

Task Design

Each graphic presented in the sequence.

A description (major statement) for each sequence was provided.

Two task sequences were used [1. Printed Circuit Board (24-step); Mouse Trap Chip (18-step)]

Each graphic had one line of text support in 1st sequence.

Each graphic had a paragraph of text support (30 words or less) in 2nd sequence.

First sequence has 8 slot process/process-outcome/outcome graphic each.

Second sequence has 6 slot process/process-outcome/outcome graphic each.

1st and 2nd sequence are similar in terms of difficulty levels (as suggested in inter-coder reliability analysis with graphics only/text only).

Repeated measures conducted over three weeks to learn about

distributed practice effect.

Variables

Dependent:

A. Score for each type / Total score (individual)

B. Dependent: Score for each sequence

C. Dependent: Score for each subassembly

Independent:

A. Text content

B. Graphics content

C. Sentence structures

D. Choice of words

E. Graphical attributes

F. Information presentation structures

G. Configuration

H. Sequence

I. Complexity of sub-assembly


Intercoder Reliability Analysis

The graphics and text were chosen on the basis of the inter-coder

reliability analysis:

1. Ease with which the text could be translated.

2. The ease with which the main idea for the graphics could be identified.

3. How many steps were shown in a sub-assembly?

4. How many components were shown in the graphics?

5. Whether action verbs were used in the sentences for matching task?

Individually, a score was put on for each of the above categories.

Findings -1 - Descriptive Statistics


N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance ProcessW1

25 3 7 5.40 1.080 1.167

POW1 25 4 8 5.96 1.172 1.373

OutcomeW1 25 3 8 5.64 1.221 1.490

Valid N (listwise) 25

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance ProcessW2

25 3 7 5.08 .997 .993

POW2 25 3 7 5.56 1.083 1.173

OutcomeW2 25 4 8 5.40 1.225 1.500

Valid N (listwise) 25

Findings – 2 - Pearson Correlation


ProcessW1 POW1 OutcomeW1 ProcessW1 Pearson Correlation

1 .342 .051

Sig. (2-tailed) .094 .810

N 25 25 25

POW1 Pearson Correlation .342 1 .456(*)

Sig. (2-tailed) .094 .022

N 25 25 25

OutcomeW1 Pearson Correlation .051 .456(*) 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .810 .022

N 25 25 25

P = .022 suggests less than 5% false positive values

More Results on the way


Friedman Test to analyze any overall difference in the mean scores for

repeated measures in process, process-outcome and outcome groups. Practice

effects studied with chi-square values.

Perform a Bonferroni correction.

Wilcoxin signed rank test to test if there is any significant difference between

bivariate groups.

Multiple regression analysis to test how a group of predictor variables might

impact the overall total score for an individual on any specific type OR all the

three types combined.

The predictor variable GROUPS are as follows:

A. Subassemblies

B. Sequences

C. Configuration identification.

D. Verb identification

Questions for Predictor Variable Groups

Accuracy scores for 5 trials for each and every task below:

Choose a graphic that represents the first task in the sequence.

Choose a sentence that represents the first task in the sequence.

Choose a graphic that might be part of a different subassembly.

Choose a sentence that might be part of a different subassembly.

Identify the different subassemblies in graphics.

Identify the different subassemblies in text.

In the following sentences (steps), identify the verb that represents a

process.

In the following sentences (steps), identify the verb that represents an

outcome.

Future Analysis

Due to complications relating to the multiple-information scenario (e.g., both process and outcome context within a single graphic or inside a subassembly scenario), within a subassembly, a multiple-regression /factor analysis should be conducted to test separate loadings of predictor variables.

Test instruments should be systematized so that we get a good reliability and Chronback’s alpha value of more that .70.

Each subassembly should be independently analyzed for its predictor variables and measured independently.

Due to the relative nature of the answer possible, an ordinal scale might be used (use Likert scale and rank order responses).


Example of Information Complexity

Identify the subassemblies and represent them in a concept map (decision ladder)


Consider this as a complete

graphical unit. Identify each

individual process and sub-

circuit outcomes.

1. Write them textually.

2. Represent it in concept maps.

3. Represent interdependent structures, concepts,

functions in a venn diagram.

Information Complexity and Assignment Design


THANK YOU !

Technology

Circuit design presentation