New technology is not exempt from principles of design

I’ve been a technical writer for about 25 years, but a friend of mine has been a technical writer for 35 years.

This friend recently pointed out that creating professional-looking output still requires you to become a desktop publisher, same as it did 40 years ago. Creating and crafting text (writing) is easier, but presenting that text to the reader (publishing) still requires a broad skill set that includes design.

Notice that I did not say that creating output still requires becoming a publisher. I said that creating professional output still does.

And if you’re not a professional, I’m not interested in your opinion of how easy it is to create something “good enough.”¹ Professional standards are different. I recently saw an amateurish example of “good enough.”

At my first employer, the head of European documentation had developed a system that allowed automated output. He had created it himself to be sure that it supported translations (by hand) in various languages. So far, no problem. After he had created the system – with no requests for input outside his own team – the creator pushed hard for his system to be adopted in all corporate offices worldwide.

Everybody else except the creator could see the major problem with the system. Its output was ugly.²

It ignored basic principles of book design. It ignored basic principles of page design. Its emphasis was on the workflow of the writer and it ignored the values of the reader. It was dull, bland, and amateurish.

The creator’s characterization of the output was “clean.” Perhaps. In the sense that a hospital room is clean, functional, and never intended for long-term habitation. The proposed system was a huge step backward for the customer experience. Documents that ignore design principles are harder and are slower to read. (Go read Edward Tufte; he’ll tell ya.)

Among writers, there’s a famous joke: “Do you want it good or do you want it Tuesday?” It. Is. A. Joke! You have to deliver it on time and it has to be good. The head of docs Europe was concentrating on delivering it Tuesday. And the content wasn’t suffering. But it was a huge step backward.

Not every writer understands the principles of design. And that’s my point. Not every writer should have to. But when people that don’t understand design principles declare design to be unimportant, their declarations should be considered uninformed.

Writing and publishing should be separate. But all too often in technical writing, the writing continues so close to deadline³ that the writer is asked to handle the publishing. Or asked to accept publication results that are ugly. The writer may have to bow the head and submit. But don’t count on the customer continuing to buy.

RIP Fred Burke. You taught me a lot, you’ve been gone for far too long, and I still miss you.