When I first started Content Rules, I did a lot of the writing work myself. I wrote training courses, installation guides, administration guides, command line references, all sorts of uber-technical stuff.
That was before the web. In fact, Netscape was one of my first customers in 1995 (which was a famous year for them, as you probably know). Back then, we actually printed books on paper. We didn’t have XML, DITA, and CMS systems. This was even before we posted .pdf files to the internet for downloading.
And back then, we were technical. We were very very technical. We wrote about technical topics, in technical ways, using technical language. Instructions were for “the user” and they were extremely formal. For example:
“The user installs this application by inserting the CDrom into the CDrom drive.”
“To install the Acme Series 9000 Router, place the box on a hard surface with the arrows pointing in the upward direction.”
We always used the third-person and we avoided “he” and “she” at all costs. We didn’t use contractions. We weren’t friendly. This was business! And it was technical!
Well, things ain’t what they used to be. Most of the technical writing I read today, even for the most technical products, tends to be written in a very familiar voice. Whereas 15 years ago, we went to great lengths to be stuffy and a bit know-it-all-ish, today we are downright jovial, familiar, and all part of the hip crowd.
Let’s take airline websites as an example. My favorite comparison is virginamerica.com versus just about any other airline website. Here is the carry-on restriction page for Virgin America:
Contrast the tone and terminology of this page with the same information on united.com:
Sure, United has that cute little puppy on the right pane. But, check out the language.
Virgin provides the information in response to a question that I could definitely hear myself asking, “How much carry-on baggage can I bring?” And the answer is very short and to the point.
Side note: I like the idea of Virgin’s presentation. It looks very easy and inviting. However, the response to the question is one run-on (and on and on) sentence that has more than 50 words in it. I think this is terribly unreadable and should be changed.
United’s site is much more formal. It contains a lot more detail. It has bullets (which are much better than one run-on sentence). It makes you pay attention. It’s tone is “I’m serious! This is important! You should listen to me!”
Next, let’s contrast the sentences about where you can find more information.
Virgin: “For detailed information on what you can or can’t bring, it’s a good idea to check with the Transport Security Administration (TSA) in the United States.”
United: “For additional information about carry-on guidelines, please visit the TSA’s website at www.tsa.gov.”
Virgin uses the second person. Check on what you can or can’t bring. It is very personal and direct. It’s talking to YOU. Virgin thinks it’s a good idea to check. United doesn’t talk to you at all. It is not personable.
While United provides a website address for the TSA (www.tsa.gov), Virgin provides the site as a hot link directly from the words Transport Security Administration. Even better than that, the link takes you directly to the appropriate page on tsa.gov with the information you need.
Virgin is friendly and helpful. That is the way all of our content is moving these days. From technical guides to websites themselves, content has gotten more familiar, more personal, and more friendly.
What do you think of this trend? I have my own ideas, which I will post next time. But, until then, I’d love to know:
- Do you prefer the friendly and personal communication?
- Do you think, for example, that Virgin takes your safety less seriously than United because it is less formal?
- Do you think the pilots on Virgin are younger?
- Do you take a product more seriously if the instructions you read are more formal?
- Is a product somehow “better” if its content is more technical? Less technical?
Val is on the Advisory Board for the Technical Communications Program at the University of North Texas. When not working with customers or students, Val can be found sitting behind her sewing machine working on her latest quilt. She also makes a mean hummus.
- Preparing Content for AI: 6 Reasons Why You’re Not Ready - August 29, 2024
- How to Be Inclusive in the Workplace: My Experience as a Hard of Hearing Person - August 12, 2024
- How to Improve AI Performance? Do This One Thing to Your Content - May 20, 2024
You have to consider audience–untechnical audience, or not very tech-heavy details have NEVER needed falsely elevated diction, we just thought they did. Simplified English rules here. Dense reference material can’t afford as much of the friendly approach because it takes more words and is sometimes less precise. The “VirginAir” voice in API docs would not go over well. However, you can keep it minimal, still pick the shortest, most common word that is precise enough for the context, and get your developer audience in and out of the doc as quickly as possible. IMHO, as always.
oops, forgot to answer your questions–yes, I prefer relaxed and friendly, esp. VirginAmerica (their site is easier to navigate too. They spent some time & $$ on usability, you can tell, compared to United). But I’m a 3rd-generation Californian. Would a Harvard Law grad appreciate the common touch? I don’t think the Virgin pilots are younger (based on the SFO > SAN and SFO > Boston flights I’ve taken, oh and to Las Vegas too, but the *customers* are looking for a great flying experience at a cheaper rate. The website communciates that well. United is still relying on it’s red/white/blue heritage identity. Which young *travelers* probably don’t value.
I do not take United’s approach to safety more seriously than Virgin’s, for example, but I do expect Virgin to lie to me less often. (bitter much?). And a product is better if it is easy to use, which depends in part on the audience it serves. An untechnical nuclear reactor would probably not be great. A technical grilled cheese would not be great 🙂
Great questions to think about when designing information architecture!!!!!!
Thanks for your thoughts, Mysti. These are definitely good things to ponder. Since you and I are both in technology, we may think differently than, say, someone in the heartland who works at a Safeway. I wish some of those people read my blog and I could ask them. 🙂
Fun choice re: comparisons! I’m w/ Mysti. It’s about the audience. But what I am really wondering is how much it would cost in both $ and TIME to translate one page versus the other. I am also wondering what MT would do w/ each, and how much post-editing it would require.
Interesting question. On the one hand, I think that “formal” writing could be easier to translate because there is a smaller likelihood of jargon and poor sentence structure. On the other hand, “friendly” writing might be easier for the translator to understand.
I do prefer friendly, except in rare instances — for example, government regulations in a B2B context). But in these examples I don’t find Virgin’s approach — except for that great heading line — any better than United’s. Maybe it’s because I’m a sucker for bulleted lists. I can find the information I need faster on United’s site than I can on Virgin’s, and I like the fact that United’s prose is direct and uncluttered.
As Mysti said, it really does depend on context. If I’m writing to first-time air travelers who need some hand-holding and reassurance, then Virgin’s approach is probably the best. But for most of the traveling public, United’s works equally well.
By the way, my all-time favorite piece of technical writing takes the reassuring, uber-friendly approach. It works because it’s exactly right for the context (novice auto mechanics).
I love your post about How to Keep Your Volkswagon Alive! It makes me want to buy a copy (almost). I agree with you 100% about the bulleted list. I think that Virgin really missed the mark by having a 50+ word sentence rather than a few bullets. And it is surprising, because in general I find their site very easy to read. Thanks for your comments!