TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Metaphors to aid description? From:John -dot- Cornellier -at- PARIS -dot- IE -dot- PHILIPS -dot- COM Date:Tue, 15 Jul 1997 13:04:46 +0200
When to use familiar terms for new things (desktop on a computer) and
when to invent new words (byte)?
Reading The Economist the other day, I see an article saying, briefly:
"metaphors were once hailed as the saviour of computing. Oppressed by
the command line interface, the world greeted with rapture the
cartoonish Apple ... but then metaphor abuse ... where bad bits of the
physical world are reinvented for the sake of familiarity. Do we
really need to open an animated door & walk over to a virtual bank
teller to check our account balance on-line? ... Metaphors are
powerful tools to help the uninitiated understand the complex, but
quickly get in the way."
OK. Personally, I find wallpapering my desktop incongruous. Ditto
leading, tab stops, carriage returns locks & shifts, & bookmarks,
icons, clipboards, spiders & webs, to name a few.
What The Economist didn't go on to say is that such use of metaphors
been going on since Throg the Caveman carved out the first
anthropomorphic totem. UK cars have bonnets & wings and boots, US cars
have hoods & trunks and, sometimes, even fins and Dagmars. Virtually
all new products use metaphors from previous objects, whether
terminological, functional, or visual.
But we're hindered rather than helped by the fact that (for example)
designers did not break away from the typewriter format when setting
up the first computer keyboards. So is the best thing to boldly design
user interfaces where no design has gone before? E.g., if mouses
weren't called mouses but Ertzls, the perennial "what is the plural of
mouse" thread wouldn't exist & the world would be a happier place. Or
not?
Does it just boil down to a short-term/long-term thing: metaphor
flattens the learning curve but introduces long-term redundancy &
inefficiency? Or is it a pygmies on the shoulder of giants thing: we
can only learn relative to what we already know?
Anyone out there had any practical experience with naming new
features, specifically with user reaction to new concepts vs.
"piggybacking" user abilities by using metaphor & recycling old
design? I guess using Latin & acronyms is a form of inventing new
words? Any general comments?
John -dot- Cornellier -at- paris -dot- ie -dot- philips -dot- com
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
