Re: The Myth of Seven, Plus or Minus Two

[eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com]

"Mike O." <obie1121 -at- yahoo -dot- com> wrote on 12/05/2003 07:25:16 AM:
> C'mon guys, it's a rule of thumb, not scripture. The best
> part of rules of thumb is that you get to break them when
> it suits you.

To which I'm in complete agreement.

> I keep the 7- step rule in mind because it helps me to Keep
> It Simple, not because I am married to any cognitive
> theories. I like terse little procedures, as long as they
> work. But I have also created multi-page, 40+ step
> procedures, with many screenshots, because I felt it was
> necessary in that case.

But, the only issues I have are that:
- 'to Keep It Simple' there is no need for ANY specific number and certainly
shouldn't be any need to hold up irrelevant research to support it.
- Miller IS used as proof and scripture by many and applied to the weirdest
settings. The responses I have received off-list have proven this point. I was
even berated with:'I can explain anything no matter how complex within the seven
plus or minus two rule. If you have a problem doing so, then that isn't my
problem.'.

Personally I find such rules of thumb, and the one based on Miller in
particular, insulting and dangerous. Insulting because anyone who
suggests/orders I follow it is questioning my professional ability and my
capability to make even the smallest of critical thinking to independently
arrive at a conclusion/decision. In the case of the seven item rule, whether a
procedure is too complex and can be simplified or not. Dangerous because as
actual techwriters follow these rules as scripture, PHBs are more likely to
impose the silly things on those that know they are only guidelines. Even if
those quoting the 7+/-2 know full well it's a rule of thumb to be liberally
ignored when relevant, those within earshot might not be capable of realising
that.

My position is simply critique complex work/instructions/lists with thought,
insight, and a knowledge of the technology and an understanding of the audience.
But now I'm starting to feel an AP moment coming on. Perhaps the fact that so
many DO obsess over 7+/-2 instead of whether the thing is REALLY too complex or
appropriate for the audience or task is that so many don't have a clue about the
technologies they are writing about.

Really, like much discussion on-list it's difficult for anyone to REALLY have an
intelligent discussion as we lack knowledge and understanding of each others
work environment, products, deliverables, or audience. But in the case of the 7
rule, I'm adamant. It's got NOTHING to do with numbers. Simply put, a list will
be as long as necessary, and no longer. Or, "Things should be made as simple as
possible, but not any simpler."

Next, I suppose someone's going to go through my body of work and try to prove
me wrong and that Miller (even if he himself will refute it) is right because
most of my steps and list DO contain 7+/- items. Oh, well..........

Eric L. Dunn
Senior Technical Writer



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROBOHELP FOR FRAMEMAKER TRIAL NOW AVAILABLE!

RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.  
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for 
competitive pricing or download a trial at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l4

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.