What’s in a Name?
By Justin Baker, Senior Member
Reprinted from “Capital Letter,” the newsletter of the Washington, D.C. chapter of STC, by permission of author and editor.
What’s in a name? A lot. As technical editors, we know the importance of ensuring that the text we edit is clear. If we are performing developmental editing or copy (language) editing, we know that concepts must be expressed in such a way that the reader does not have to stop and figure out what is being said. We know that the more times a reader has to stop in a text to figure something out, the less the chance that the reader will leave the text with a solid understanding.
There are many elements to look for when editing a text at the development level or language level. One of these elements is terminology. The precise use of terminology is important. The more precise the terms, the more economical and efficient the text (Strunk and White, anyone?). The precise use of terms keeps text uncluttered and makes language more interesting to read and, in some cases, more valuable: the precise use of terms can make a text pregnant with meaning.
All of this, of course, applies to technical terms as well. Sometimes technical terms are misused. Other times a concept or model outgrows the original terms that were used to describe it. This is the case with the terms paper-based documentation and online documentation. These terms have been established in the technical-communication lexicon for years. The logic of their meaning was clear at the time that they emerged in the 1980s and early 90s: in addition to the centuries-old paper document, we also now had documentation on a computer (online). But these terms came into existence before the World Wide Web became dominant and hypertext became the norm for online documents, therefore eschewing the traditional linear, narrative structure.
In the days when text-based interfaces still existed, online documentation was much like paper-based documentation: it had a linear, narrative structure with traditional cross-references that did not lead a reader off on an entirely different path from the original text. At the time, it made sense to use the terms paper-based documentation and online documentation, because the only difference between the two was in their output: one was on paper, and the other was on a computer.
In the 1990s, the World Wide Web became a huge presence in the world of documentation. Because of hyperlinks, the term online documentation began to primarily mean a document that was not necessarily read in linear fashion. The term began to refer to the structure of a document, rather than the medium in which it was published. But the newer, predominant definition of online documentation conflicted with the older definition, which still existed.
These conflicting definitions have opened up a can of worms. Is it online documentation only if it has a hyperlinked structure? Is it online documentation if it is a document designed for print but posted to a Web site as a PDF document? Then there’s the quandary of whether a Web site that is printed out on paper is paper-based documentation or still online documentation.
From this confusion emerges the idea that perhaps it is not best to define a document by its published form. Perhaps it would be better to define a document by its structure—linear documentation or Web-based documentation. If you publish a traditional report on paper or post it to a Web site as a PDF document, it still has a linear structure. Even if you print an HTML document published on a Web site, that document still has a Web structure with hyperlinks, and the author’s intention is that readers will carve out their own narrative (logical) path. One could argue that the Web-based structure of the document is no longer present once it has been printed on paper, since you can’t click a hyperlink on a piece of paper. This is why I have included the author’s intention as part of the definition; if the author intends for readers to carve out their own narrative path, then the document still possesses a Web-based structure. And I argue that this contrasts with a traditional text that has many footnotes. The author of such a text intends for the reader to read in a primarily linear fashion, even if that reader skips ahead to other chapters. The text is still linear.
As technical editors and as members of a technical communication society, we may never be able to turn the tide of usage in the general business community. However, we should strive to use the most accurate terminology, at least within our own profession and communities. Electrical engineers strive to use the most precise terms in their field because it makes their communication more efficient. As technical editors and communicators, we must ensure that such precise language is used in all disciplines in which our work is based.
It is time to change the terms used to describe the different models of documentation. No more paper-based and online. It’s time for linear documentation and Web-based documentation. We as technical editors with our proverbial red pens have the power to help steer this change.
Justin Baker has been a technical writer and editor for nine years. You can reach him at bakerjustin@earthlink.net.
James Prekeges said,
June 6, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Having lived through the era and issues described (I started my career as a Technical Writer in 1982, and moved to Microsoft in 1984), I can say that this article is a relatively decent description of the problem, although I believe certain leaps are made which leave gaps, which in turn lead to the author’s misunderstanding of the core issue.
To get to the core of the issue, the author is confusing the INSTRUCTIONAL delivery medium and the PHYSICAL delivery medium.
Simply put, there is the nature, structure, and organization of the content to be delivered which is based on what the author and readers’ intents are, and the physical form used to deliver it.
For example, a tutorial is inherently linear, as it guides the user specifically through a series of tasks that must be completed in a certain order. This is the instruictional delivery medium. This tutorial could be delivered in print (in a book), in print form on-line (aquired via the internet as a PDF that is meant to be printed out), on-screen (from a disk included in the purchased package), or “online” over the internet.
Long ago, the distinction was smaller. For example, if you wanted to show a complex conceptual process, “video” was ideal. But what was video? It was moving pictures with audio explanation. About the only way to deliver this was on videotape. Hence, when you said “video,” the instructional and physical delivery media were inextricably intertwined.
As it became easier (and eventually cheaper) to create and distribute “video” in an “online” (on-screen) way, people began to see “video” as meaning more of the instructional delivery of pictures and audio, and were able to separate out the physical medium.
(Things get a little sticky here when we talk about audio, because audio is merely text that is delivered in a different physical medium — via sound waves instead of as text on a printed page or on a screen. But let’ss not get distracted.)
Thus, the issue of “linearity” describes how a user ACCESSES the content from an instructional standpoint, and how the author intends for it to be accessed based on the author’s understanding of the user’s needs.
If the author is creating a tutorial, the ocntent will likely be highly linear. If the author is creating a reference, such as a dictionary, the content will be hghly non-linear, and arranged for rapid, random-access.
Like video, “online” (meaning “web-based”) has evolved over time. It has come to mean “via the internet,” and the implication attached to this is that is means “highly non-linear.”
However, with the ability to stream “video” over the internet, as well as with the drive to use web-style (browser-based) help systems that are shipping on a disk with a product, once again the distinction between the instructional medium and the physical medium has become more clear.
Thus, if the author wishes to distinguish between linear and non-linear, then call them that. If the author wishes to distinguish between things that appear on-screen but are accessed locally (from user’s disk) versus non-locally (via the internet), then make that distinction. If the author wishes to distinguish between print and on-screen, then do so.
But to suggest that there be a distinction between “linear” and Web-based is to suggest something that makes no sense, because the vast majority of people, if asked if a printed dictionary is “web-based” would reply that of course it is not. This is becasue “web-based” originally meant, and to most people still does mean, “internet-accessed and viewed on-screen in a browser.”
To put it another way, ocntent on the web can be linear, and print can be non-linear (which the author essentially defines as “web-based”).
While I applaud the author for identifying a problem that can lead to significant misunderstanding, I would recommend reconsidering the proposed solution. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but if you called it a daisy, nobody would smell it, because you have misled and confused the reader.
Dave Wright said,
July 31, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Did you do a spell-check on your article?
4th paragraph: instruictional
7th paragraph: let’ss
9th paragraph: ocntent
various: on-line and online
In our business, credibility goes down the drain if we have misspelled words! I finally gave up reading–too many errors!
Gary Barker said,
August 1, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Dave, look again.
What James posted was not an article. It was a well reasoned but impromptu response to an article. He did not compose his response in a word processor that includes a spelling checker among its features. Instead, he entered text into a no-frills text-entry field.
James participated respectfully in this conversation as a thoughtful, engaged, and concerned professional with something to contribute. There is no harm in that and there is no call for derision.