Tag Archives: augmented reality

Questions from the old year, questions for the new

Looking back over this blog’s performance in 2017, I see a pattern. The 3 most popular articles, in terms of page views, were ones that posed questions. The questions I asked in 2017 are still worth considering today.

Is augmented reality part of technical communication’s future?

While AR is popular for gaming, I asked, can it become a viable platform for technical communication? Nearly a year after I wrote the article, I still don’t see much enthusiasm.

screen shot of a sky map appThere are a few popular low-end AR apps, like the stargazing apps I mentioned in the article. Susan Carpenter, in a comment, envisioned using AR for museum interpretation.

But it’s still hard to see a business case for AR in mainstream product documentation. General Motors, attempting to break into this market, deployed its myOpel app a few years ago. While the app is still available, it’s getting only tepid reviews and it doesn’t seem to be spawning imitators.

Why is it so challenging to apply AR to product documentation? Partly, perhaps, because it’s so hard to know exactly what the user is doing — and trying to do — when they access the documentation. Mark Baker pointed that AR will work only if we can maintain our focus, remove distractions, and not introduce new distractions by, say, cluttering the user’s field of vision with “dashboards” full of irrelevant data.

As we turn the calendar to 2018, the vision of AR for technical communication remains gauzy, maybe somewhere in distant the future but not yet coming into focus.

Is “soup to nuts” what we need?

When I posed this question, I was thinking of authoring systems that combine under one banner all of the major steps of the content workflow:

  • Creating
  • Managing
  • Reviewing
  • Publishing

Vendors have been pitching these kinds of systems for a while. But I questioned whether very many real-world content-development teams were buying and using them.

Since I wrote that piece, my company has invested in one of those “soup to nuts” systems. We’ve begun using it to create, manage, and publish content — but not to review it. Just as I said back then, our subject-matter experts still prefer to mark up drafts using a familiar format like Word or PDF.

It’s too soon to tell whether our soup-to-nuts system will, as I feared, actually hinder cooperation and collaboration with other parts of the company. Service and Marketing, for example, use tools and processes that don’t play well with our the soup-to-nuts system we’re now using in Information Development. How big a hurdle will that prove to be?

People who commented on the article expressed skepticism, based on their own experience, about whether soup-to-nuts can work. One correspondent, however, reported being very happy with a tool I hadn’t considered when I wrote the article: Atlassian Confluence.

Will you still need me? (STC at 64)

Sgt. Pepper album with STC logo addedDuring the last Summit conference — and as Liz Pohland took the reins as STC‘s new CEO — I invoked a Sgt. Pepper song to explain why I thought STC, then marking its 64th anniversary, remains relevant in the 21st century.

I said that STC — which for decades has billed itself as the world’s largest professional society dedicated to technical communication — has stayed relevant by:

  • Providing a solid platform for networking and information exchange
  • Curating a body of knowledge
  • Connecting practitioners with educators

To stay relevant, I said that STC must:

  • Reach across to professionals in fields that involve content creation but that don’t necessarily fall under the rubric of technical communication
  • Make newcomers welcome and help them find their place in the organization
  • Find new ways to attract, train, and energize volunteers — because volunteers are the lifeblood of STC
  • Build its certification program into something that’s valued by practitioners and their employers — a process that’s likely to take a long time
  • Continue to operate as a worldwide society, retaining its place at the table alongside organizations like tekom in Europe

Now, in 2018, STC is spotlighting its age: its next conference is billed as the 65th Anniversary Summit. I think that its strengths, and its challenges, are much the same as they were in 2017.

What do you think — about STC, about soup-to-nuts systems, or about augmented reality?

What questions do you think our profession will need to focus on in 2018?


Is augmented reality part of technical communication’s future?

While walking my dog last night I came upon a mother and her young son standing on the sidewalk. She was holding her smartphone high in front of her, pointing it toward the western sky.

As I came near she announced, “Mars and Venus.”


The Sky Map map (Screen shots from Google Play)

I learned the names of the planets and stars the old-fashioned way: standing outside on cold nights with my dad, and studying the sky atlas he gave me. But today I guess there’s an app for that. There are actually several apps, as a cursory Google search will attest.

I think it’s cool that you can aim your phone at the sky and learn the basics of stargazing. I think it’s very cool that many of the apps are using augmented reality.

When I got home I downloaded one such app, Sky Map. True to its name, Sky Map immediately gave me a clear, easy to use map of the heavens. I haven’t yet sussed out what all of the icons mean. But I had fun using the Time Travel feature to see the positions of the moon and planets on the day I was born.

Do I sound like a space geek? Guilty as charged.

When it comes to augmented-reality apps, though, I’m still unsure about a couple of things.

No business case?

Number one: the stargazing apps are very low-cost. Many, like Sky Map, are free. So it’s hard to see whether there’s a business case for using AR in training and technical communication.

I write documentation for networking hardware — switches and routers. I can easily imagine how customers would like AR documentation that shows them how to attach brackets to switches and mount them together in a rack. But does customers would like translate to customers would pay for? Or to customers would choose my company over our competitor?

In the absence of clear answers, would my company invest in the tools, time, and training needed to develop such documentation?

Not ready for prime time?

Number two (and maybe this follows from number one): it seems so far that AR is mostly the province of gamers and app developers — not technical communicators or training developers.


Time Travel, Sky Map style. Recognize the date?

Most of the literature about AR in technical communication is still speculative. An article might say, for example, Here’s what AR is, and here’s how I think it could be applied to tech comm. Or: Everyone loves AR, and tech comm is on the verge of embracing it. I’ve seen only a handful of isolated case studies in which AR actually is being used for technical communication.

One such case study is General Motors’ myOpel app. GM began distributing the app to Opel owners a few years ago. Does anyone know if they’re still doing so? Or if they’ve expanded the idea to other brands? (A quick peek at Google Play reveals that myOpel is still available but it’s getting only tepid reviews.)

So, despite the star-struck articles (one of which — full disclosure — I wrote in 2013), I remain unconvinced.

What do you think? Do the stars say that AR will be a big part of technical communication’s future? Have you done AR work for technical communication or for training and if so, have you succeeded in making the business case for it?