This document discusses designing procedural instructions for user manuals. It focuses specifically on circuit diagrams. There are several challenges with complex machine instructions, including multiple components, subassemblies shown from different angles. The author proposes using pictorial and schematic styles of circuit diagrams to improve understanding. A case study examines how readers comprehend process versus outcome graphics and text-graphic coordination for circuit assembly instructions. The study assessed comprehension of sequences and subassemblies through matching tasks.

1. Designing Procedural Information for
User Manuals: A Case Study with
Circuit Graphics
Debopriyo Roy
Associate Professor, University of Aizu

2. Complexity in Instructions Design
In traditional instructional design, information designers create
instructions with the whole assembly context in mind, while the readers
have a smaller context; only being able to follow the instructions in the
designer’s chosen order and content presentation (text + graphics).
Problem with Complex Machine Instructions:
1. Multiple components involved (additions and change across
subassembly).
2. Multiple Subassembly shown.
3. Different camera angles shown (body-centered, object-centered).
A problem arises due to inconsistency between the information
designer’s and the reader’s mental models (Norman, 1983).
Technical Communication Laboratory

3. Pictorial Circuit Design
 Pictorial Diagram is a
simplified diagram which
shows the various
components of a system
(motorcycle, car, ship,
electronic devices,
airplane, etc) without
regard to their physical
location, how the wiring
is marked, or how the
wiring is routed. It does,
however, show you the
sequence in which the
components are
connected.
Technical Communication Laboratory

4. Pictorial and Schematic Styles of
Circuit Diagrams
A pictorial circuit diagram uses
simple images of components,
while a schematic diagram shows
the components of the circuit as
simplified standard symbols;
both types show the connections
between the devices, including
power and signal connections.
Technical Communication Laboratory

5. Focus
 Readers need to understand the context of text and graphics for any
complicated procedural task.
Process graphics/text show procedural task when the action elements
(instruments, hand motion, arrow for motion, direction etc) are involved.
Outcome graphics/text show the result of that action without involvement of
action elements. This is unlike animations.
Technical research questions:
 The extent to which text as aid is understandable?
 Can readers differentiate between process and outcome graphics as aid?
 Do readers understand and coordinate text-graphics information at each sub-
assembly level?
 Do readers understand the visual context, independent of configuration and
task sequence?
 Can readers make transitions between subassemblies, independent of text?
Technical Communication Laboratory

6. Graphical Issues in Circuit Design - A
Circuit Diagram
Process Graphics
Process-Outcome Graphics
Technical Communication Laboratory

7. Outcome Graphics
Sequence and Sub-assembly
Technical Communication Laboratory

8. Implications in ESP Context
 In a hardware engineering-based course, would readers
be able to understand complex designs and circuits
graphically?
 To what extent would they be able to understand
complex graphics in a minimalist design set-up?
 Would they be able to understand the supporting
general text instructions written in English? (procedures)
 Would they understand complex geometrical functions
and logical design explained in English?
Technical Communication Laboratory

9. Advanced Technical Writing Course
 Focus on the Graphical Design Elements
 Assignments should focus on providing supporting text to
complex procedural graphics
 Comprehending and matching tasks for text-graphics
coordination.
 Understanding the placement of text and graphics in a local and
global context.
Technical Communication Laboratory

10. A Typical Assignment in Technical Writing
 Read the technical article on circuit design.
 Identify the sentences/phrases in the text which explains a
procedure.
 Identify the sentences/phrases in the text which explains an
outcome of a procedure.
 Identify the sentence/paragraph which is shown in the process
and outcome graphics.
 Write a sentence on your own to explain each graphic you see
in the article.
 Identify the process, process-outcome and outcome graphics.
Technical Communication Laboratory

11. Few Assessment Criteria with Usability
Perspectives
 Structural Information
 Functional Information
 Conditional Information
 Declarative Information
 Sequence Comprehension
 Information Scanning ability
 Ability for Text-Graphics coordination
 Ability to develop context-specific usage
Technical Communication Laboratory

12. Research Question and Hypotheses
 Is it possible for users to understand text which explain
process versus outcome orientation?
 Is it possible for users to understand graphics which
explain process versus outcome orientation?
 Hypothesis: Based on research (Sharp, 2001), readers
perform better with process graphics than with outcome
graphics. However (based on previous findings on a
similar context [Roy, 2006]), when text and graphics are
presented in coordination, readers perform equally well
with both process and outcome graphics.
Technical Communication Laboratory

13. Methods
 25 students in an undergraduate (junior-level) technical writing course were
tested as part of a pilot study.
 A survey was handed out after an initial screening of the students’ ability to
identify procedural information.
 Each participant was tested with 8 text-visual matching tasks each on the
category of process, process-outcome and outcome graphics.
 Readers spent time reading basic circuit graphics articles before starting with the
experiment.
 Readers were given the chance to read about the experimental case study and
check the process as part of an animation.
Technical Communication Laboratory

14. Test Instruments
 Each category had 8 matching tasks. Each task had a text and graphic. The three
categories are identified as Type#1 (process), Type#2 (process-outcome) and
Type#3 (outcome). Readers did not know how the material was organized.
 For each text support (one sentence each) (inside a type), readers had to match the
text with a suitable graphics. For each matching task, readers also had to identify
whether it is a process, process-outcome or outcome graphics.
 Each text and graphics were chosen as a coordination from articles/text on circuit
design literature (from Google Scholar). Text for each graphic, was written to
demonstrate the process/outcome orientation (ignoring other details).
 Each matching task had 1 point assigned to it as score. For each type users could
have maximum of 8 points.
 All introductory level articles/materials were used for the survey. Readers were
given a chance to familiarize themselves with the material that had the text-graphics
choices published.
Technical Communication Laboratory

15. Task Design - How to Make a Printed
Circuit Board (Presented Sequentially)

16. Task Design (Mouse Trap Chip)
This sequence of pictures illustrate how the servo
door can be constructed. Our first prototype mouse
trap used a door made of an old credit card. The
plastic is easy to shape using scissors. This first
picture shows the underside of the door. Notice
there are no screws protruding through the plastic,
the bracket is glued to it. This is so the door can be
flush against the opening to the trap when closed.
The fitting that attaches to the servo came with the
servo with 6 points, or stars. I cut 5 points off
leaving one to mount to the bracket with a small
#4-40 screw and nut. Cutting the unwanted stars
is up to you.

17. Task Design
 Each graphic presented in the sequence.
 A description (major statement) for each sequence was provided.
 Two task sequences were used [1. Printed Circuit Board (24-step);
Mouse Trap Chip (18-step)]
 Each graphic had one line of text support in 1st sequence.
 Each graphic had a paragraph of text support (30 words or less) in
2nd sequence.
 First sequence has 8 slot process/process-outcome/outcome
graphic each.
 Second sequence has 6 slot process/process-outcome/outcome
graphic each.
 1st and 2nd sequence are similar in terms of difficulty levels (as
suggested in inter-coder reliability analysis with graphics only/text
only).
 Repeated measures conducted over three weeks to learn about
distributed practice effect.

18. Variables
 Dependent:
A. Score for each type / Total score (individual)
B. Dependent: Score for each sequence
C. Dependent: Score for each subassembly
 Independent:
A. Text content
B. Graphics content
C. Sentence structures
D. Choice of words
E. Graphical attributes
F. Information presentation structures
G. Configuration
H. Sequence
I. Complexity of sub-assembly
Technical Communication Laboratory

19. Intercoder Reliability Analysis
 The graphics and text were chosen on the basis of the inter-coder
reliability analysis:
 1. Ease with which the text could be translated.
 2. The ease with which the main idea for the graphics could be identified.
 3. How many steps were shown in a sub-assembly?
 4. How many components were shown in the graphics?
 5. Whether action verbs were used in the sentences for matching task?
 Individually, a score was put on for each of the above categories .

20. Findings -1 - Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance
ProcessW1
25 3 7 5.40 1.080 1.167
POW1
25 4 8 5.96 1.172 1.373
OutcomeW1
25 3 8 5.64 1.221 1.490
Valid N (listwise)
25
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance
ProcessW2
25 3 7 5.08 .997 .993
POW2
25 3 7 5.56 1.083 1.173
OutcomeW2
25 4 8 5.40 1.225 1.500
Valid N (listwise)
25
Technical Communication Laboratory

21. Findings – 2 - Pearson Correlation
ProcessW1 POW1 OutcomeW1
ProcessW1 Pearson Correlation
1 .342 .051
Sig. (2-tailed)
.094 .810
N
25 25 25
POW1 Pearson Correlation
.342 1 .456(*)
Sig. (2-tailed)
.094 .022
N
25 25 25
OutcomeW1 Pearson Correlation
.051 .456(*) 1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.810 .022
N
25 25 25
P = .022 suggests less than 5% false positive values
Technical Communication Laboratory

22. More Results on the way
 Friedman Test to analyze any overall difference in the mean scores for
repeated measures in process, process-outcome and outcome groups. Practice
effects studied with chi-square values.
 Perform a Bonferroni correction.
 Wilcoxin signed rank test to test if there is any significant difference between
bivariate groups.
 Multiple regression analysis to test how a group of predictor variables might
impact the overall total score for an individual on any specific type OR all the
three types combined.
 The predictor variable GROUPS are as follows:
A. Subassemblies
B. Sequences
C. Configuration identification.
D. Verb identification
Technical Communication Laboratory

23. Questions for Predictor Variable Groups
 Accuracy scores for 5 trials for each and every task below:
 Choose a graphic that represents the first task in the sequence.
 Choose a sentence that represents the first task in the sequence.
 Choose a graphic that might be part of a different subassembly.
 Choose a sentence that might be part of a different subassembly.
 Identify the different subassemblies in graphics.
 Identify the different subassemblies in text.
 In the following sentences (steps), identify the verb that represents a
process.
 In the following sentences (steps), identify the verb that represents an
outcome.

24. Future Analysis
 Due to complications relating to the multiple-information scenario (e.g.,
both process and outcome context within a single graphic or inside a
subassembly scenario), within a subassembly, a multiple-regression
/factor analysis should be conducted to test separate loadings of
predictor variables.
 Test instruments should be systematized so that we get a good reliability
and Chronback’s alpha value of more that .70.
 Each subassembly should be independently analyzed for its predictor
variables and measured independently.
 Due to the relative nature of the answer possible, an ordinal scale might
be used (use Likert scale and rank order responses).
Technical Communication Laboratory

25. Example of Information Complexity
Identify the subassemblies and represent them in a concept map (decision ladder)
Technical Communication Laboratory

26. Information Complexity and
Assignment Design
Consider this as a complete
graphical unit. Identify each
individual process and sub-
circuit outcomes.
1. Write them textually.
2. Represent it in concept
maps.
3. Represent interdependent
structures, concepts,
functions in a venn diagram.
Technical Communication Laboratory

27. THANK YOU !