Paper Versus “On-Line” (Part 2. Benefits of On-line Documentation Production)

The findings of O’Hara and Sellen have little applicability to my work situation, which features only one process that can effectively utilize the advantages of paper: namely proofreading/checking. All writing is produced by means of applications, but copy is printed for final checking whenever time permits. Impromptu jobs frequently involve jotting translations onto paper, which is an ideal and practical medium for such tasks, but these consume at most, several minutes. The overwhelming bulk of the workload arrives as PDF files, is edited via Adobe Acrobat, and then returned for SGML/XML setting.

Translations are issued in .DOC files, and document transfer is performed via Lotus Notes database.

The Benefits of On-line Documentation Production

1. Currently, 90% of this company’s documentation is created on-line. Reversion to paper would be implausible.
2. On-line writing is best suited to changeable and functional content. It is thus appropriate for troubleshooting and step-by-step procedures, which describes most of the writing we produce.
3. On-line production is also superior for conceptual and other content that changes less frequently, if only to make the editor’s job easier and permit cost-effective revision at post-release stages.
4. Typical on-line documentation requires minimal conceptual context.[1] A Help system is a good example of this.[2] Creating Help on paper would be an unduly abstract task, since the creative phase would be too dissimilar to the user-end manifestation and necessitate a time and labour consuming intermediate digitization/inputting stage.

• On-line creation permits textual searching, a function that lightens editors’, writers’, and translators’ workloads considerably. Jargon can be matched for consistency without need for external referencing. However, there is a drawback: the possibility of inherited errors or forced adoption of faulty style. On-line documentation tends to coerce conformity sometimes at the expense of better phrasing – something this company is trying to avoid. 
• Provided the editing software supports layering and the original is not directly overwritten, on-line collation, editing, and revision are quicker and cleaner than using paper (cf. O’Hara and Sellen, 1997). However, with editing packages such as those by Adobe, the editor has to make comments upon the writer’s comments, and cluttered pages result. Any potential confusion creates significant problems at the SGML/XML stage, where a non-English speaker is keying in the amendments.
• Computer-based editing allows automation of mechanical tasks via macros, shortcuts, spell-checkers, and find-and-replace functions. This saves time (Tarutz 1992, p. 124; Anderson, 1990, p. 10).
• On-line translation presents fewer difficulties than modification of existing documents. Typically, source language is read from one Word file and the translation is entered into another. I advise the translators I work with to paste the original text into the new file, insert line breaks between sentences, and interleave their translation with the original language, using different colours to aid at-a-glance distinction. Such juxtaposition and manipulation is impractical on paper (cf. O’Hara and Sellen, 1997: annotation is a speedier process than jotting for summarization), and even if it could be done, there are potential shortcomings such as handwriting, faithfulness of the transfer, and speed to address.
• Word supports tracked changes. This function is helpful for providing critical feedback and allowing new writers to adopt house style with minimal overt direction.
• On-line creation generally involves copy going through three stages, a separate document created at each. Paper does not offer writers or editors the ability to track document development with comparable simplicity. Paper is inherently analogue and capturing the document at its principle evolutionary moments necessitates photocopying and filing. 
• On-line production saves composition time and desk space.
• Paper documents require scanning and faxing to be sent somewhere; on-line documents can be e-mailed or stored in databases.
• Red and blue pencil marks do not reproduce clearly on scans or faxes; special fax-proof pencils are required.
• On-line editing uses marks and methods that are determined by the software. This restriction eliminates writer idiosyncrasies and discrepancies in markup style.   
• On-line writing and editing simplifies application of formats and templates (Pattow and Wresch, 1998, p. 153-163).
• Flags and other highlighting functions help writers draw the editor’s attention to potential problems (Burnett, 2005, p. 274).

The Drawbacks of On-line Documentation Production

1. Line editing is better done on paper, mostly for the reasons listed in 2., below (Bremer, 1998, p. 212).
2. Compared with on-line: errors are easier to find in printed text than on screens (Schriver, 1997, p. 282); revisions, editing, proofreading marks, and miscellaneous comments are effortless and quicker to apply.
3. Hard copy is storable and robust.
4. On-line requires an on-line system, and everyone working within to be adequately skilled in its usage. This creates problems in scenarios such as ours, where there are skilled translators who are poor computer users.
5. Translators’ skills are blunted by the unnatural templates, be they style or application related, that on-line systems impose. Automated (blind) correction creates problems, and time is wasted on ‘style’ questions.
6. On-line writing poses challenges that some writers do not fully comprehend, particularly those who do not have access to usable samples giving indication of how the end product will appear to the user (a relatively minor problem with paper based work, where manuals abound).
7. Many writers believe that on-line and print documents are essentially disparate and irreconcilable entities.
8. We have found that on-line work is not as multitask-friendly as might be assumed. Valuable screen space and memory is eaten up very quickly and side-by-side document comparison, which is so easy with paper (O’Hara and Sellen, 1997) and so essential to accurate proofing and consistency control, is problematic without dual monitors.
9. Echoing the findings of O’Hara and Sellen, it is evident that few on-line editing packages provide flexible and usable annotation functions. Because our documents pass through several layers of writing, checking, and editing, it helps to be able to accurately identify who did what, when, and why. This is no trifling luxury, especially if the need to trace a serious oversight arises. Unless all contributors have established an explicit system of coding their input, problems occur (Butcher, 1975, p. 24). Such a system exists here, but people are fallible and dozens of comments and markings on a single page create confusion.
10. The on-line process generates a multitude of document versions under different names, which is efficient for storage and handling; that is, until the numbers become unwieldy, whereupon tracking what is what becomes time consuming.
11. Writers continue to compose sequentially and incrementally, as if creating a book. Creating and controlling on-line documentation requires different skills. Training burdens the editor.
12. Time must be spent setting up the system; once it is running, there are difficult decisions to make concerning how to alter existing text data so the system can exploit it.
13. Many writers we employ consider writing on-line documentation as ‘pulling the short straw’. Our (albeit very limited) usability research indicates that on-line documents have a poor reputation, and users are generally reluctant to use them if there are alternatives. In the early years of Help authoring, the belief was that topics must be as brief as possible, and conceptual context and graphics omitted. This did little to encourage users to trust on-line content.
14. On-line production lacks the tactile familiarity and absolute simplicity that paper offers both the editor/checker and end user. This is a vine within the on-line versus print debate. Sufficient resources have not been allocated to usability testing of on-line documentation. Hence, we are still writing unscientifically, based on supposition regarding how user needs determine usability of on-line documentation. [3]
15. On-line information and the processes that create it are still a novel concept to many writers. Many writers are entrenched. They attempt to create a book to be read on-line, which does not work.
16. On-line content is often over-abbreviated. Some writers are familiar with the limitations and merits of on-line documentation and write accordingly but neglect quality issues they would address if writing for paper media.

Conclusions

In several distinct ways, editing from paper, like summarization from/onto paper (O’Hara and Sellen, 1997), is a simpler and better-performed task than its on-line equivalent. Workplace experience indicates that for correcting, revising, writing short translations, and note taking, paper is the preferable medium.

However, work quantity and time limitations bear heavily in favour of the on-line process, owing to its intrinsically superior modification, standardization, processing, and distribution capabilities.

Crucially, creating on-line gives writers and editors a reliable and immediate indication of how their document will appear to the user. Whereas paper documents (e.g. manuals) must pass through multiple stages before reaching their ultimate manifestation.

The fundamental advantage of on-line document creation is version control, which is both easier and more economical than with paper.

[1] Conceptual context needs to be obtainable, but at the user’s discretion. Such information is likely to be memory heavy and in many cases, superfluous to user requirement (users simply do not need to know the finer points of TCP/IP to make their network settings). Thus, context material is better relegated to CD-ROMs or servers rather than local hard drives.

[2] Help is created far more easily using semi-automation packages, such as RoboHelp.

[3] Until concrete research is available, on-line material (and many of the processes that generate it) will remain inferior to paper in many respects, chiefly because paper is a proven medium with a well-established production system that continues to serve adequately, particularly in the case of manuals.