The study set out to validate the supportive role of screen captures for switching attention. Forty-two participants learned how to work with Microsoft Excel with a paper manual. There were three types of manuals: a textual manual, a visual manual with full-screen captures, and a visual manual with a mixture of partial- and full-screen captures. The findings show that participants in all conditions looked up from the manual to the screen on about 97% of the cases in which such a switch was called for rank order analyses showed that users of the visual manuals switched attention significantly more often than did users of the textual manual. No differences were found between conditions on learning effects and training time.

The study examines the use of screen captures in manuals. Three designs of manuals were compared, one textual and two visual manuals. The two visual manuals differed in the type of screen capture that was used. One had screen captures that showed only the relevant part of the screen, whereas the other consisted of captures of the full screen. All manuals contained exactly the same textual information. We examined the time used on carrying out procedures (manual used as a job aid) and the results on retention tests (manual used for learning). We expected to find a trade-off between gain in time and learning effects. That is, we expected that higher scores on the retention tests involved an increase in time used and, vice versa, that gains in time would lead to lower retention test scores. We also explored the influence of manual design on user motivation. For job-aid purposes, there were no differences between manuals. For learning, the full-screen captures manual and the textual manual were significantly better than the partial-screen captures manual. There was no proof for the expected trade-off. More learning was not caused by an increase in time used. We found no effects on user motivation. This study does not yield convincing evidence to support the presence of screen captures in manuals. However, if one wants to include screen captures, this study gives clarity for the type of screen capture to choose. The use of full-screen captures is preferable to partial ones. Finally, we conclude that documentation designed to expedite the execution of tasks does not necessarily hamper the learning that may result.

The ISTE approach offers a new method of concurrent testing that is less time-consuming than usual. In addition, it helps catch the user in the act and the scores show almost immediately whether the user has processed the manual as intended. In the ISTE approach, the main information subtypes in a manual are coupled to their intended and unintended effects on users. Research has shown that the ISTE approach yields reliable and valid findings. In addition, it has been found to be versatile and easy to apply, and it provides valuable insights on the usability of a manual.

We describe ten common misconceptions about the minimalist approach to documentation design. For each, we analyze how the misconception arises from plausible interpretations of minimalist principles and heuristics. We then clarify how each misconception deviates from minimalism, as we understand it. Analysis and discussion of creative elaborations of minimalism-including "misconceptions"-can promote a sharper concept of what minimalism is.

The paper examines whether manuals provide adequate help for users who are experiencing a problem. First, an outline is given of the main stages in problem solving. This outline offers a broad framework for the two studies of current practice that follow. The first study focuses on the accessibility of help. It examines how often manuals fail to offer the right keywords, and how often they have not marked or have misplaced problem solving information. The main conclusion is that most manuals pose formidable obstacles to accessing help. The second study investigates the main reasons for presenting problem solving information as a regular step, as a skipable action, or as an afterthought. The main finding is that writers or typographers tend to opt for a different design than what is theoretically best.