RTFM 1995, Ethan A. Winning, All Rights Reserved _________________________________________________________________ As a management consultant who writes many employee and administrative manuals, I'm usually surprised by the questions I'm asked by client employees, questions which are often answered in the manuals. When I was a corporate personnel manager, I would answer, but admonish the employee to look in the manual: as a consultant, I answer and explain without referring to the handbooks. RTFM is a commonly used acronym on CompuServe, which in politically correct terms means, Read the Fine Manual. Probably not a day that goes by when a Sysop wouldn't like to respond to ninety percent of the questions with, RTFM. But our Sysops are a kinder, gentler breed, and only resort to referencing the acronym in the final sentence of an answer with, You can find a full discussion of this on page 126 of the manual that came with the program. However, there are many biological, physical, psychological, and otherwise real barriers to the Sysops' wishes to be more direct. First, everyone knows that the sexes read manuals differently. A woman starts with page i sometimes even with the dedication and ISBN number and continues reading until she understands enough of a program to turn her computer on. However irrational this is seen by men, women ostensibly take a logical step-by-step approach. (It is just one more reason why a woman should handle a checkbook rather than a man who will have a balanced budget as soon as Congress does). A man's approach to learning, manuals, and computers in general is quite different. For men activity is its own reward. Men first turn on the computer, enter a program, and learn by doing doing something, doing anything, but doing. Failing that, a man will then look at the index of the manual or, better still, flip from the middle back and forth until he has determined that what he wants does not exist in the book. You see, a man is more curious than determined. In passing, he will note that these program manuals actually have topics under Q and Z. But, if he isn't looking for Quick Reference or Zip, it does not become part of his reality. A woman, on the other hand, won't get to Q until the third week of the learning curve. (Men have more of a learning circle with spokes and spikes.) While I have been guilty of the plunge right in technique on occasion, I prefer the second masculine approach: leaf through the manual and look at the pictures and other graphics. If I recognize anything, I then read and master the section. Then, and only then, do I immediately go online and ask a question of the Sysop knowing full-well that I have read the manual and can start my question with, I just got through reading the manual... While this is not a we-against-them discussion, all Sysopsi (plural as fora is for more than one forum) must also appreciate the fact that not all manuals are created equal some are worse than others, and none is good. (If software can be marketed with glitches, then the books will have corresponding idiosyncrasies. In fact, I have a hunch that all computer- related companies have a Readme.doc Department.) Were this not true the market for secondary books on programs would be nil instead of a billion dollar a year business. The Dummies books were not built on a foundation of fantastic manuals. When the software manufacturers are hiring technical writers, they should be looking for non-technical writers who know something about the intricacies of the software. Technical writers talk technical. I used to manage a whole flock of these folk, supposed and real geniuses of the world wearing Birkinstocks in Minneapolis in January. (I misspoke: I tried to manage a group of such people. It was my job, certainly not on my life's to do list.) Here's a minor example. Many years ago (in software generations), I bought a database program. Just today I took out the manual that came with it. I turned to the following on page 7: Template symbols and functions relate to specific data types. If you use a template symbol or function with an incorrect data type, the program disregards your instructions. It makes no sense to use the C and X functions for validating input. Why not? One of the best manuals ever printed was the first WordPerfect 6.0 for DOS. It is the only manual for any program I've ever bought where I did not have to go out and buy another book. Why? Because (almost) all the topics are in alphabetical order. The writers of that manual rightly or wrongly assumed that men knew the alphabet, and also obviously understood that such a configuration would now allow men to skip the index as well. It is only in this arena of life that men become the browsers. Knowing that they did such a good job, the folks at WP did the same thing for their Windows version. Unfortunately, this time I had to buy two more books because I don't get Windows. Besides, they changed all the verbiage: Block is now select and what used to be the cursor is now called the insertion point. Thank heavens the writers of tech manuals don't have to write about sex. One problem that we have is that the original programmers made serious mistakes in selecting terminology for little problems we run into. Most of the time, few of us understand the messages that flash across the screen, but we don't have to because we are actually allowed into the program or to do whatever we're trying to do. Sure, there are minor screen notations, such as Not reading Drive A: Abort, Retry, Abandon. (I never have understood the difference between abort and abandon, but I always choose abort because abandon means I'd have to leave the room, and I'm not sure there's enough time.) Okay, that's no so bad, but nothing will get me online faster than, Fatal disk error, I/O something or other... (After the word fatal I stop reading.) Having been on CIS for a few months now, I resolved to bother Sysopsi as little as possible. "Be good," I said to myself, "Read the fine old manual. Be sure that the answer isn't right in front of your nose. Most of all," I continued, "don't try to get into a new program at two o'clock in the morning. You know how that upsets you." I had been on my best behavior for almost a whole day, and then it happened: after more than a decade of using DOS, yesterday I bought Windows! What could be complicated about an operating environment where they use pictures rather than words? Other than the fact that some of these icons are not linked to reality (like a safe with a chain around it for files ), I was also not told that you can't see through these windows. There are icons buried under other icons, almost like the Russian Matrushka dolls. Worse, one of my icons disappeared. I don't know where it went or how it got out for that matter. All I know is that it was here before lunch, and now it s gone. Where d it go? How do I get it back? I know. I'll read the manual. Lessee... Disappearing. No, not there. Icon, Disappearing. Nope. Icon, Gone. No. Icon, Restore. Aha! "To restore an icon to a window, double-click the icon." What the.... How can I double click what isn't there? Now let me see, which forum.... _________________________________________________________________ Ethan Winning is president of E. A. Winning Associates, Inc., a Walnut Creek, California employee relations consulting firm specializing in tailoring employee handbooks for smaller companies. A nationally known author as well, his articles and columns have appeared in many magazines, newspapers, and journals. He may be reached by email at ewinning@ix.netcom.com, by phone at (510) 944-1034. For information about the company's services or to purchase a copy of the second edition (1996) of Labor Pains call 1-800-823-6366. You can also see him on the San Francisco Bay Area's television program, JobNet which airs on Viacom TV. [LINK]Home [LINK]Back To ABN Last updated 6/30/96. Copyright 1994, 1995, by Ethan A. Winning. All rights reserved. This article previously appeared in The Personnel News.