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.
There 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:
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)
During 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?