Proposal home

     Literature review

     Methodology

     Conclusion

     References

     Working bibliography

Hosted by

Follow these links to learn more about VUNA and IVU:

For audience analysis, the practical angle of the project demands that I examine the literature of audience analysis looking for specific methods that effectively identify the users of the proposed manual. The task is to determine how technical writers analyze audience--in other words, what techniques they use to put the theory into practice--which will enable me to adapt those techniques to define the audience for the manual.

Despite well-developed and extensive discussions about audience in the literature--for example, Clavenger (1966), Pearsall (1969), and Youga (1989)--the literature contains few directives for applying the theories of audience to an actual analysis of a target audience. When technique and application are discussed, a mixture of intuitive and what I call informed techniques emerges as the most effective way to accurately define the audience for technical documents. Neither can stand on its own; only by combining the methods can a writer form an accurate and usable definition of audience for a given project.

Intuitive analysis seems to be the starting point for any audience analysis, regardless of the project. Coney (1978) suggests that the writer must create a "mock reader" that lends a concrete idea of audience to the writing process and enables the writer to adapt the document to the audience (97). The reader is created by examining the needs, purpose, and motivation of the reader as well as the circumstances and rhetorical context within in which the reader reads. The imagination of the technical writer in creating this mock reader and his or her ability to keep the reader at the center during the composing process is the key to using this method of intuitive audience analysis during the drafting stage. Lay (1982) describes intuitive techniques as well, paying particular attention to procedural and instructional writing, which will undoubtedly be part of the vegetarian food fair manual. From a business perspective, Lay defines these types of writing and declares that each has a "built-in audience." In other words, the type of writing itself describes the audience. To complete the analysis, the technical writer must decide what the audience does and does not know and define the goal of the operation overall. These determinations provide guidance for audience-related questions during the composition process (e.g., What is the goal of the procedure? When and how do participants interact? How does the specific task of each participant contribute to the goal?). Diehl and Mikulecky (1981) also find built-in clues to audience in different kinds of writing: reading-to-do, reading-to-learn, and reading-to-assess. Additionally, each type of reading and the readers' purposes for reading it bring with them specific considerations for the technical writer who is trying to create the most usable document possible. Awareness about these specific concerns helps the writer use intuition to define the intended audience.

Although they cannot form the entire basis for an analysis of audience, intuitive approaches such as these can contribute to the overall description of audience for the proposed manual. Intuitive analysis also has applications in determining the individuals a writer must involve in informed audience analysis techniques. Sullivan and Porter (1990) give one example of informed audience analysis, in which actual members of the audience give input to aid the writer in defining the target audience overall. They contend that user testing at the draft stage of computer documentation can improve documentation during revision and influence a "writer's emerging and maturing concept of audience" (78). They advise writers to combine careful planning and intuitive analysis with concrete user input early in the project to develop a real and focused sense of audience. Floreak (1989) also supports this approach to audience. His focus is also on instructional and procedural writing, and he describes a method in which he uses intuitive analysis to determine potential members of his target audience. He then interviews these individuals, gathering information about their expectations, needs, and background using face-to-face and questionnaire techniques. These interactions inform both the writer's intuition and his or her actual writing process by providing a more concrete definition of the audience. Porter's (1992) forum analysis is also a form of informed audience analysis in which a writer studies the discourse of the community he or she wants to contribute to and uses intuition as well as deduction to define the characteristics of the intended audience.

The literature suggests that to take full advantage of the information gleaned from usability testing, documents must be tested throughout their production, not simply at the end. Several writers have discussed the advantages of early-stage user testing. Sullivan and Porter (1990) demonstrate that when used heuristically, draft-stage user testing is useful not only to create a more concrete idea of audience for the writers but also to assess which design elements or global features of a document will meet the needs of the audience (80). They adopt Atlas' (1981) user edit protocol, which "is based on a very simple idea: Find someone who knows nothing about your machine and have him work with it, using only your manual as a guide; his errors and hesitations should tell you where your weak points are" (28). He also advocates having usability test participants speak aloud while they work to understand better what they are trying to do. Schriver (1997) follows a similar protocol but elects to perform the analysis as a read-aloud usability test for different kinds of instructional and procedural writing. This type of protocol identifies missing or misleading and poorly designed instructions.