Sunday, April 2, 2017

humor - How much humour is effective in technical documentation?


It's well known that live presenters are often advised to add a dose of humour in order to engage the audience better.


However, I very rarely see humour in written technical documentation; this despite it also being widely known that most people rarely engage with documentation, and consume it very ineffectively when they do.


"The Feynman Lectures on Physics" are a good example of humour being included. Is avoiding humour just a cultural tradition, or is there research indicating that there's no engagement boost from using it in written documentation? (Or, as I would hope, is there research that there is such a boost)?



Answer




The typical user of technical communication is in a hurry and in a bad mood. They were working along trying to get a job done so they could go home and have supper with the kids then something broke or refused to work the way they thought it should, or a part would not go on properly, or a bug appeared out of nowhere, or the whole system quit working and blue smoke started pouring out.


They are not in the mood for a joke.


We should think of technical communication like a pitstop. It is a time to get the user what they need to continue as efficiently and with as little drama as possible. There is no time in a pitstop to tell the one about the dentist and farmer's daughter.


That is why there is no humor in most technical communication and why there should not be.


Humor in learning materials is another matter. Some like it. Some despise it. If you are selling a Dummies book, you can appeal just to those who like it and let the people who don't buy an O'Reilly book. But if this is your corporate training, you probably do not want to turn off half your audience.


No comments:

Post a Comment

technique - How credible is wikipedia?

I understand that this question relates more to wikipedia than it does writing but... If I was going to use wikipedia for a source for a res...