Technical Translation: Usability Strategies for Translating Technical Documentation

Grouping and Organising Information 
In order to interpret the objects we see, we need to be able to regard them 
as meaningful units. Under the broad category of constructivist approaches, 
the Gestalt psychologists such as Koffka (1935) and Köhler (1947) devel-
oped a way of grouping or organising information so that it “means” some-
thing or forms something to which a meaning can be attributed. So rather 
than seeing a series of separate, individual objects in isolation, we group 
them into units or organised “wholes” (Coe 1996:18). This is the basis for 
shape just as easily as from the individual letters that make up the word.
The Gestalt approach to organisation provides us with 6 basic “laws” 
which help us organise and interpret objects: 
Proximity
,
Similarity
,
Conti-
nuity
,
Symmetry
,
Closure
, and 
Common Fate
.
112
the statement on page 108 that we can recognise certain words from their 

---

Perception
Proximity 
If objects are near each other, the average person will tend 
to group them together. This law applies not only to ob-
jects such as lines or shapes but also to text, tables etc. 
Similarity 
If objects are similar, we will group them together as a 
unit. 
Continuity 
We are more likely to perceive smooth, continuous pat-
terns rather than abrupt or non-continuous ones. 
Symmetry 
If we see an area bounded by symmetrical borders or ob-
jects, we tend to group everything together to form a 
symmetrical figure. 
Closure 
If we see an object with gaps in it, we will see past the gaps 
and view the object as a whole. 
Common 
Fate 
If we see objects moving or pointing in the same direction, 
we will group them together as a single unit because they 
share a “common fate”. 
Table 1: Gestaltist Laws for Grouping Information 
Prägnantz 
The law of Prägnantz (Coe 1996:23) is also called the “goodness of figures” 
and refers to the way humans generally opt for the simplest, most obvious 
interpretation of an object. This “law” illustrates how we group informa-
tion and compensate for missing or faulty information to produce the most 
probable and likely interpretation given the context. In a way which is 
similar to the ideas put forward by supporters of relevance theory (Sperber 
& Wilson 1986; Gutt 1991), humans will opt for the interpretation which is 
most accessible and which requires the least processing effort.