Re: Controlling (La)TeX

Dave Walden <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Generally speaking, `Users don't read documentation' is just an excuse
for not providing it used by those releasing software.

I don't think the above is completely right. The part about not providing
documentation based on an excuse may be correct, but I think it is also
correct that many users tend not to read documentation, and I think this
has always been true, even back in the 1960s.

Of course. But the other thing to bear in mind is that *some* users
always have wanted to read the documentation.

I don't know what the ratio is, but some people (I suppose) mostly learn
by reading and others (I know) mostly learn by trying.

Quite - and you need the manual-readers. Those who learn by trying
things out on computers rather than reading the manual need to have
around those of us who do read the manuals for when they run into
trouble.

(remember that we're talking only about computers here - the way I learn
about real world stuff is quite different to the way I learn about
computers)

Then, like now, we in the latter group wrote our programs (on punch
cards) without reading the documentation, submitted it to the computer
center, and looked at the results (a memory dump) to try to figure out why
it didn't work. We did this repeatedly until we gradually figured out how
[Fortran or whatever] worked, or we asked someone a question [like asking
on c.t.t].

Quite - although you did read the manual in the first place to learn
Fortran, to interpret the memory dump, and so on. The problem with the
approach you outline is that it doesn't work if you've not got people
around who have read the manual, or have spent the inordinate amount of
time it takes to figure out what ought to be in the manual without
having the manual around.

Another problem is that some people can't learn about computers the way
you describe - I can't, for example. I don't read the manual

Only occasionally did we look for and read a little part of a
manual. I suspect more people have always tried first than read first,
although the ratio may be getting more lopsided in these days of
point-and-click.

The ratio is `nearly everyone doesn't read the manual' these days,
because the manual generally does not exist.

(To generalize, many [most?] people don't read
automibile manuals, don't read microwave oven manuals, don't don't read
cell phone manuals, and don't read table saw manuals.

There's not a lot of comparison between computers and real world stuff -
the learning techniques that apply to computer things don't apply to
real world things, and vice-versa. From personal observation, those who
learn by doing on computers tend to be lousy at learning about `real
world' things.

In many real world cases, it's very easy for a normally intelligent
person to figure out what's going on. It takes a special kind of mind
to figure out software by trial and error - and that special kind of
mind isn't much good at reality, from what I've seen.

On the subject of `real world' documentation: cell phone manuals are
largely unreadable. Anyone with a `table saw' (bench mounted circular
saw?) who hasn't read the manual is a moron who deserves to have some
part of his anatomy ripped off. Microwave oven manuals are largely
pointless, and if you won't read the manual that came with your
car/motorcycle, you *will* have problems (for example, how can you check
that the mechanic who did the servicing did the job unless you've read
the manual to check what he should have done, and then checked that it
was done? Neceesary if you're daft enough to employ someone to maintain
your motor vehicle, but I gather most people are that daft). Not
reading the manual in some real-life cases is just plain stupid.

We somehow stumble upon some subset of things that get something useful
done, and that limited knowledge expands very slowly, mostly when we see
someone else do something we didn't know how to do

Which is another good reason for reading the manual, if you can find it
and if it's worthwhile. It's quicker and gives you access to a wider
and better range of techniques.

-- similarly we may
read about something on c.t.t that we didn't previously know about.)
People will try what worked in some other environment: if it works,
wonderful; if not, they will do without or ask someone.

That only works for a limited subset of tasks and people. Most of what
I want to do cannot be `picked up' that way.

[snip]

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hyperref queries
    ... TeX documentation really does need to be re-written for people who are ... Indeed - I can work with car maintenance manuals, ... Another difference with TeX is that it's not just a toolbox - it's more ...
    (comp.text.tex)
  • Re: DTV antennas?
    ... of the customer base has some form of written or on-screen learning or ... How about they can't find the documentation to read? ... It's not easy, rough reading, totally ... Manuals that are full of illustration and examples work ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: 50G flag -78
    ... I wonder why it back-referenced all the way to the HP48; ... if one does pay a visit, a more recent AUR will be found. ... is that it is listed as a documentation download on the 50G Manuals ...
    (comp.sys.hp48)
  • Re: Controlling (La)TeX
    ... documentation based on an excuse may be correct, ... but some people mostly learn by reading ... I suspect more people have always tried ... read automibile manuals, don't read microwave oven manuals, don't ...
    (comp.text.tex)
  • Re: Hyperref queries
    ... The effort involved in translating most TeX-related documentation into ... something like 80-94% of everything in crap. ... manuals. ... so you don't speak English as your native language. ...
    (comp.text.tex)