Vegetarian Food Fair Manual Project

The Vegetarian Food Fair Manual Project

Methodology

Conclusion

References

Working bibliography

Hosted by

Follow these links to learn more about VUNA and IVU:

Thesis Practicum Proposal

Methodology

Because each technical document and project is unique, the methodologies and techniques described in the preceding sections will require adaptation to suit the vegetarian food fair manual. One of the advantages of this project is its context and focus. VUNA is a nonprofit organization, so work on the project will be volunteer. The extra time that I might need to carry out an additional user test or speak with additional sources will not cost the organization financially. Coupled with the emphasis on communication, cooperation, and readers that this project necessarily has, reduced costs and flexible scheduling create almost ideal circumstances for the technical writer.

Audience Analysis

A forum analysis of the International Vegetarian Union, a larger organization to which VUNA belongs, has already been completed. This analysis reveals the discourse conventions of the organization to which I am seeking to contribute, and it also gives insight about the potential audience for the manual I am going to create. This knowledge will translate into document design and revision decisions later in the project. I will carry out additional audience analysis using intuitive and informed analyses. As a member of a small nonprofit organization that has organized and held a vegetarian food fair, I can create a fairly accurate portrait of the target audience, what Coney (1978) called the mock reader. Given the diversity that is present in even the small group to which I belong, however, it is clear that intuitive analysis will not be sufficient to clearly define the audience for their manual or its expectations and needs.

Informed analysis, then, will proceed at the start of the project. I have been provided with a list of individuals who share an interest in this project, and they and the members of their organizations will become the contributors for pre-writing audience analysis. I will create questionnaires and hold interviews that will elicit information about user expectations and needs and give the "target audience" a chance to make recommendations about what information the manual should contain and how it should be organized. I plan to approach a mix of experienced and inexperienced individuals so that the expertise of one group is balanced by the lack of experience of the other, giving a well-rounded response. I will most likely derive my questions from a list presented by Schoff and Robinson (1984) and will add to their suggestions by adapting usability test questions to fit the audience analysis protocol. I will also adapt Floreak's (1988) protocol to suite audience analysis for the manual.

Document Design

After defining the target audience using questionnaires and interviews, I will be able to make decisions about document design in the manual. I will identify key characteristics that increase usability and effectiveness and consult the appropriate resources to address these issues. A user-centered document cannot be created until a clear definition of the users is created. Schriver (1997) will be the starting point for this research. Extrapolation from the forum analysis suggests that the aside from a detailed index and table of contents, the page layout must be easy to scan so that users can find information quickly. Flexibility in design is also a key element in the manual because the circumstances of each organization will be different. Providing adequate space to "personalize" the document will add to its usability. Once users record information in the manual, it will become the sole location of that information. Therefore, heavy-duty paper, a durable cover, and substantial binding will be recommended to extend the life of the document. Visuals, forms, and generous use of white space will also be part of the design to increase the effectiveness of the document and make the procedures clear (see Appendix A for more details).

Usability Testing

Because of the emphasis placed on usability and audience for this project, usability testing will play a role in each stage of document development. The document must stand on its own and anticipate user questions if it is to effectively guide users through the project from start to finish. At each stage, then, I must return to the audience to establish a heuristic for revising and improving the drafts.

My experience as a member of a small organization that has held a vegetarian food fair combined with the list of contacts provided by VUNA provide the tools I need for usability testing. The list contains the names of both experts and novices, and the input of both will be crucial to determining the usability of the document. As many of the articles indicate, a fine line exists between audience analysis and usability testing. Although their purposes differ, the techniques for gathering data and determining the candidates for usability testing are quite similar. Again, given the importance of audience in this project, usability testing at both early and late stages of production is necessary.

I will perform early-stage user testing by adapting the protocols of Atlas (1981) and Schriver (1997). Carrying out the usability test Atlas describes--that is, having test subjects sit down with the manual and perform the tasks is directs while reading aloud--is somewhat inappropriate for the entire manual. Only specific sections of the manual can be tested this way--for example, the sections of the manual that provide procedural information about determining a budget, dividing the overall organization into specific tasks, and acquiring the necessary permission and forms to begin planning. These sections contain stepwise information that lends itself to Atlas' protocol and can be used as he proposes. Schriver's methods resemble those that Atlas proposes, but with some slight modifications that make them more appropriate for the food fair manual. Schriver proposes read-aloud protocols but also shows visuals of documents that have been reviewed by target users on hard copy. The figures depict documents on which users have underlined and made comments about certain parts of the text. Although these marks and comments are presumably inserted from read-aloud transcripts, it seems reasonable that, given explicit instructions, users might also simply write their comments directly on drafts of the actual manual pages. The participants in this project are necessarily separated geographically because each is involved in organizations that are centered in cities and towns throughout the United States and Canada. The likelihood that these individuals could come to one central location for usability studies is small, which limits the team's generation of data for usability testing. The importance of usability testing, especially for this kind of project, however, is too great to ignore; this adaptation of Atlas' and Schriver's protocols--a "writing" protocol, in essence--seems to be the most effective means of getting the user input that is crucial to creating a usable document.

Geographic separation and the content of the document also place constraints on final-stage testing. Several authors indicate that questionnaires are useful tools for usability evaluation, and these protocols are adaptable for the manual project. Many of these protocols, however, were developed with computer manuals and users in mind. The context and circumstances of the vegetarian food fair manual differ vastly from those of computer users. Therefore, these questionnaire-type protocols will necessarily require adaptation for this project. Ramey (1988) gives examples of specific questions she asks during usability testing. Although she is clearly thinking of computer users--those who would have the manual in front of them as they attempted tasks directed by the usability team--the same kinds of questions are useful for evaluating the usability of the food fair manual. It seems plausible that the manual could be distributed to selected vegetarian activist groups in North America, who could return a questionnaire or participate in a question-and-answer period after they had actually used the manual to organize a food fair. Questions such as those suggested by Ramey would then apply as given. This protocol poses some risk because groups might be misled or confused by information or design elements in the manual that decreased usability and would have been corrected had user evaluation been performed before distribution of the document.

On the other hand, the usability team could perhaps enlist experts (mentioned by Harris [1991] as an important group to consider in usability testing) for a preliminary usability test. These individuals would have the expertise to approach the document and perform "tasks" based on their knowledge of organizing a food fair (basically following Atlas' user edit protocol). Using their experiences as a guide, they could search through the manual looking for information that they know must be included if a fair is to be successful. They could also judge the ease with which they found information and the quality of the table of contents and index for locating instructions for specific aspects of food fair planning. During these tasks, the adaptation of Schriver's read-aloud protocol (the writing protocol described earlier) could be used to record the responses of users and enable them to point out areas of the text in which there are problems and write comments and make suggestions. Testing the document with a group of experts would most likely catch any instructional errors or design problems that might cause difficulty for less experienced users. After distributing the document, any remaining problems with the documentation could easily be handled by the usability team itself in the form of "technical support," because many of the members of this team are already members of organizations that offer assistance and information about planning and organizing vegetarian food fairs.

TOP