Why? For one thing, users struggle to make sense of all of the functionality embedded in a modern word processor. Who hasn't watched people struggle to get their templates to work, make all the letters look the same, have their document formatting look the same across computers, prevent the document from putting single lines on the last page, and try and make sense of bulleted lists?
More fundamentally, though, structured authoring is bringing single-sourced (publishing the same content in various output formats) and reused (reusing bits and pieces from one document in another one) to the masses and is rendering WYSIWYG obsolete.
tcworld recently had a good article on this topic. Why formatting matters calls WYSIWYG a "false premise" and argues that it is being replaced by WYSIWYM: What You See Is What You Mean.
Personally, I'm skeptical. There can be no denying the rise of structured authoring or the above-mentioned frustrations with WYSIWYG. And sure, usability experts have lamented its limitations for years. But while technical writers and techies might love the control that comes with WYSWYM, I can't imagine average users embracing the article's notion that "[there] is just content, and visible – not visualizable – structure" as in this screenshot (click for larger version):
What do you think? R.I.P. WYSIWYG? Or is this just something for tech writing groups?
ForeignExchange provides specialized medical translation services to the world's leading medical device and pharmaceutical companies.
2 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To see, hear, and interact with the results of our work as the user will see, hear, and use it is (and always will be) the best way to create high quality, usable documentation. (Note: in this last sentence, I have expanded the concept of WYSIWYG to other sensory and perceptual qualities like sound and navigation.) To actually see and feel what we create as we create it is the absolute ideal in developing any kind of art (and writing is art). In most creative endeavors, imagination is the only way to realize this vision before a work is completed. Just think about how an artist "sees" a painting or sculpture. In technical communication, we have the luxury of actually experiencing that realization; to see what we create as we create it.
How you deliver your product is absolutely irrelevant!!! Structured (networked) or sequential (e.g., PDF) is only the method output systems use for showing your product to your users. It is only important for you to know and see how it will appear to those users... that is WYSIWYG.
Do you consider moving backward half a century to be progress. Your clock is simply running in the wrong direction. Better questions for this group are, "How can we make WYSIWYG even better, more accurate, and more realistic for creators? How can we add other media to the WYSIWYG paradigm... like video and sound, maybe even feelings and interaction?" Better to ask, "How will WYSIWYG evolve in the next fifty years?"
[Via LinkedIn]
[Via LinkedIn]