Technical Translation: Usability Strategies for Translating Technical Documentation

Section 6: User Guide 
For 
Question 6.1
“The user guide is: confusing/clear” the average Control 
group rating was 4.6 while the average Experimental group rating was 6.6. 
This indicates that the Experimental group found the user guide 43.5% 
clearer than the Control group did. 
In response to 
Question 6.1.1
“The terminology used in the user guide: 
confusing/clear”, the average Control group response was 4.2 and the aver-
age Experimental group response was 6.2. Despite the terminology in both 
versions being almost identical, these figures represent a 47.6% improve-
ment in the Experimental group. One possible explanation for this is the ef-
ity
and accessibility of information. 
Question 6.2 
“Language used in the user guide is consistent: 
never/always” provided some interesting results in terms of how noticeable 
the repetition of textual structures was perceived by subjects. The average 
Control group response to this question was 6.2 and the average Experi-
mental group response was 7.8. While on the one hand this shows that the 
Experimental version of the user guide was more consistent than the Con-
trol version, the fact that there was no large increase in consistency from 
the point of view of the user indicates that users were not particularly aware 
of the repetition of textual structures caused by IL. As such, we can argue 
that IL is not as noticeable and, therefore, not as disruptive to users as one 
would imagine. On a related issue, however, one subject in the Control 
group mentioned in the post-task interview during the pilot study, without 
any form of prompting or specific questioning, that the lack of consistency 
and Iconic Linkage (the subject did not use this term but rather described 
the phenomenon) in the user guide proved problematic and distracting and 
hindered comprehension. Although no other subject mentioned this (the 
247
fect on users’ overall attitudes to the document caused by improved usabil

---

Assessing Usability 
information was in no way solicited) it does highlight the fact that while 
the presence of Iconic Linkage is not always detected by readers, a lack of 
Iconic Linkage may be noticed. 
In response to 
Question 6.3
“Understanding information in the user 
guide is: difficult/easy” the Experimental group, with an average rating of 
7.2, found the information in the user guide 71.4% easier to understand in 
comparison to the Control group which responded with a rating of 4.2. 
For 
Question 6.3.1
“Finding a solution to a problem using the user 
guide: impossible/easy” the Experimental group with an average rating of 
6, found it on average 20% easier to find solutions to problems than the 
Control group with a rating of 5. 
In responding to 
Question 6.4
“Amount of help given: inade-
quate/adequate” the Control group gave an average rating of 5.2 and the 
Experimental group gave a rating of 7. From these figures we can see that 
the Experimental group were 34.6% more satisfied with the information 
provided by the user guide even though both versions contained the exact 
same information. Again, we can see that improved usability in one area 
can improve overall subjective ratings in other areas. 
In 
Question 6.4.1 
“User guide defines specific aspects of the system: in-
adequately/adequately” with an average rating of 7, the Experimental 
group found the user guide’s definition of specific aspects of the system 
66.6% better than the Control group who gave an average rating of 4.2. 
In response to 
Question 6.4.2 
“Finding specific information using the 
user guide: difficult/easy”, the Experimental group with a rating of 7 found 
it 29.6% easier to find specific information using the user guide than the 
Control group which gave an average rating of 5.4. 
On the basis of the responses from the two groups to 
Question 6.5 
“In-
structions for performing tasks are clear and unambiguous: never/always”, 
the Experimental group (6.2) found the instructions 24% clearer and easier 
to understand than the Control group (5).