A ‘very important’ writing tip

I just came across a real gem of a letter on Letters of Note, sent by C.S. Lewis to a young American fan in 1956. Isn’t it lovely and quite remarkable that he replied to his fan mail in such a thoughtful and personal way?

Aside from that, though, this letter stood out to me because of a particular piece of advice shared in it, which I think all e-learning designers (indeed, all writers!) should be mindful of:

In writing. Don’t use adjectives which merely tell us how you want us to feel about the thing you are describing. I mean, instead of telling us a thing was “terrible”, describe it so that we’ll be terrified. Don’t say it was “delightful”; make us say “delightful” when we’ve read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers, “Please will you do my job for me.”

How often do we make the mistake of telling our learners that something is ‘very important’ – especially in compliance courses? Are we guilty of laziness when we do this? Is it easier to just tell our learners that doing (or not doing) something is important and expect them to believe us, rather than illustrate consequences and impacts in such a way that they can infer the importance themselves?

Incidentally, the other four pieces of writing advice included in C.S. Lewis’ letter are equally valuable and worth bearing in mind – go and take a look.

Image: Simon Howden / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

How to avoid common consistency mistakes

I recently mentioned the importance of consistency, and then rediscovered this article about common consistency mistakes. As the article says, ‘the first line of defence against consistency errors is simply being aware of them’. So, be sure to check these 10 things before submitting your next document:

• Phrases in capitals
• Hyphenated phrases
• Heading case inconsistencies
• Numbers in sentences
• List or bullet punctuation
• Table or figure labels
• Spelling
• Punctuation in tables
• Capitalisation in tables
• Hyphenation of compound modifiers

The original article includes examples of each type of error along with details of how frequently they occur. I’m not at all surprised to see capitalisation topping the list – this is one of my biggest bugbears. I’m not a fan of excessive capitalisation anyway but, if you must do it, do it consistently!

The article does recognise that not all inconsistencies are errors – sometimes there is a valid reason for a phrase to be capitalised or hyphenated in one situation but not in another. Unfortunately, I suspect (and the study confirms) that inconsistencies are more often accidental than intentional.

This study was carried out by Intelligent Editing, the producer of PerfectIt, a tool which I haven’t used. However, I have had a play with their free online consistency checker. Upload a document, and it very quickly generates a report highlighting the type and frequency of consistency mistakes. It doesn’t show you exactly where the mistakes are, it doesn’t correct them for you, and it only checks for a handful of the common mistakes (for a full check of all inconsistencies, you need the paid-for tool; the site includes a comparison table) – but it’s a handy extra check.

Image: Nutdanai Aphikhomboonwaroot / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Three tips for effective quality assurance

I hope by now I’ve convinced you of the benefits of quality assurance – although I may not have convinced you that QA is a fun task! Either way, accepting that you need to do it is one thing; knowing how to do it effectively and efficiently is another.

Here are my simple tips.

1. Give it a fresh look. I’m sure we’ve all written things, reviewed them thoroughly, and then noticed a mistake once it’s too late. In fact, I’d probably bet money on there being at least one error in at least one of these posts on QA. It’s all too easy to miss mistakes or imperfections in your own work, largely because you know it too well. The best solution to this is to get someone else to QA your work after you’ve reviewed it yourself. But if a fresh pair of eyes isn’t available, put the work aside (ideally for a day or two, but at least for a few hours) or transfer it into a new format. When you come back to it, you’ll be more likely to see the detail, rather than seeing what you know you wrote.
2. Consider TVF in turn. My experience is that it’s not possible to review everything at once. You can’t pay full attention to the spelling and grammar if you’re also trying to review the visual details. Likewise, if you’re focusing on trying to break interactions and check functionality, you’ll struggle to pay attention to the flow of content and the sense of the narrative. So I think it’s really worth doing at least two separate QA reviews: one to look at the textual element and the overall sense, and another to look at the visuals and functionality. It might sound laborious, but doing two or three QAs right first time is preferable to doing multiple iterations because your client picks up on mistakes you missed first time around.
3. Allow plenty of time. How long would you allow to QA a 60-minute e-learning course? There’s no right answer here, obviously, but my gut feeling is that around three hours would be right (if not a little longer). This allows enough time to review all three elements in detail, to flick backwards and forwards between screens as required to check consistency, and to log clear and specific details of all the bugs and issues found. This last point is vitally important, whether you or someone else will be making the changes – it’ll help speed up the turnaround of the next iteration without misinterpretation or error, and it also provides you with a detailed audit trail of changes requested.

My final two tips would be practise and spread the word! Next time you have a document to QA, make a conscious decision to set aside plenty of time to do it properly. Even better, ask someone else to set some time aside to QA it as well – and offer to do the same for them. By insisting on high standards and integrity in your own QA process, you’ll help develop a wider QA culture – and that can only be a good thing.

Archetypes – worth looking into? (Find 15: 30 January – 3 February)

This week I was drawn to a webinar hosted by James McLuckie (of Eden Tree and the Learning and Development Group on LinkedIn) and presented by Patrick Bray (Pad) of Team Me. It was titled ‘transforming personal and professional performance with archetypes’ and this is what Pad does everyday.

The idea of archetypes stretches back as far as Plato, with teachers and thinkers defining different numbers and names of archetypes over the millennia. As Pad’s focus is on performance, he’s chosen to hone in on just six archetypes which define the Team Me model:

• The Sovereign is a confident individual who isn’t afraid to take command and use their position of power in order to establish justice, prosperity and success in their ‘realm’.
• The Warrior is a capable, passionate individual who ensures boundaries are respected and enforced and whose focus is on getting the job done (and getting it done right).
• The Sage is a logical, rational individual who places a lot of emphasis on evidence and intellect, and who considers life to be about continuous learning and searching for truth.
• The Mystic is someone who can detach themselves to take a big picture view or adopt different perspectives, making them good mediators, skilled at managing change and influencing people.
• The Lover is a trusting, open and nurturing individual who values relationships, harmony and personal connections between people most highly.
• The Jester is someone who lives life like a game, avoiding boredom or monotony and always finding the funny side in situations, sharing their lighthearted views with those around them.

Pad explained that everybody has elements of all six within them, but some will be more dominant than others, as illustrated by a simple ‘personal profile’ bar chart based on 1-10 ratings against each archetype. The archetypes group broadly into two categories: those associated with left-brain logic or rationality (Sovereign, Warrior and Sage) and those associated with right-brain creativity (Mystic, Lover and Jester). We’ve all heard that ‘opposites attract’ and this applies to archetypes too – opposite archetypes often have common connections, for example in what drives them or their perception of time:

• The Sovereign works well with the Mystic, because both are driven by power and both tend to look ahead.
• The Warrior works well with the Lover, because both are driven by passion and both focus on the present.
• The Sage works well with the Jester, because both are driven by perception and both look heavily to the past.

Of course, everything so far suggests that archetypes are fairly one-dimensional. We might well recognise these profiles, particularly when we think of characters from literature, film or TV, but most of us probably don’t like to think we can be so simply defined. Pad acknowledges this with the notion of ‘the shadow side’: the idea that each archetype has its healthy, balanced state but also has the potential to become ‘overheated’ (an excessive caricature, almost, often as a result of their personal needs not being met) or ‘frozen’ (almost the antithesis of their balanced state, often prompted by failing at something despite giving it their best shot).

I found all this pretty interesting – and obviously this is just a taster of the Team Me model – but I do have some reservations:

• Although Pad does have a questionnaire he sometimes uses to help people identify their archetype profile, this often seems to be done simply by asking an individual how strong they feel each archetype is within them. I think I have two concerns about this. Firstly, I think I know myself fairly well. Yes, this perhaps provides a structured framework through which I can articulate that knowledge, but I’m not sure that a list of recognisable archetypes will really help me develop my understanding of myself. Secondly, what would help me develop that understanding would be something beyond my own perspective, a more objective exploration of my character – for example through a questionnaire or others’ views of me. For me, this would be a more useful application of the model.
• I feel a little bit ‘so what?’ about it all. It’s interesting to think about what my profile might look like – although, again, I don’t really feel like my personal profile as created by me is particularly valuable – and it’s fascinating to consider to what extent authors and scriptwriters draw on the archetypes. But it does feel a little superficial, a little one-dimensional. I’m not entirely sure what I’m meant to do with this information.

It’s disappointing, then, that the hour-long webinar had to (understandably) spend a considerable amount of time simply explaining the concept of the archetypes, leaving little time to explore how they might be used to transform personal and professional development. Pad made two suggestions:

• Mapping an individual’s personal profile separately from their professional profile, and comparing the two. For example, someone might consider the Lover to be their predominant archetype at home and in their personal life, but the Warrior to be more evident at work. Mapping the two against one another and identifying any significant disparaties can, Pad says, help to get to the root of performance issues and I guess lead to constructive discussions about strengths, weaknesses and development actions.
• Creating the ideal archetype profile for a particular role and using this during the recruitment process. This might involve asking candidates to rate themselves against the model and then mapping them against the role profile to see who is likely to be more or less suitable. There was some uncertainty about this on the Twitter backchannel, and I doubt Pad was suggesting that this be used as the sole recruitment tool. It’s not unusual for organisations to include some level of psychometric profiling in the recruitment process, and this is just another take on that.

I think ultimately for me this has given me something interesting to think about; like learning styles, right-brain/left-brain theories and MBTI (which, incidentally, Pad approves of but thinks is less easy for people to connect with) the Team Me archetypes offer a potentially useful reminder of different character traits and preferences when designing learning solutions, but I’m not yet totally convinced of the value of archetypes for really transforming performance. Maybe I need to explore it more deeply though to really uncover the value.

(I cheated a bit with Find 15 this week – after Learning Technologies and Performance Support conferences last week, there’s simply too much to reflect on and share. So I’ve been blogging in my lunchtimes and evenings all week, and used my ‘designated’ 75 minutes to attend and write up this webinar.)

Image: digitalart / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Three themes at Learning Technologies 2012

This year’s Learning Technologies event was a bit different from previous years for me. In the past, working for a supplier, I’ve spent most of my time on the exhibition floor – although I gained something new from the experience each year. This year, though, I was able to really experience the conference as a delegate and a track chair.

Don Taylor and the team pulled off a bit of a coup with three impressive keynote speakers, along with a varied programme of topics and presenters. I’ve got pages of notes I want to look back over to help consolidate my takeaways and follow-up actions, but as I reflect on the two days there are three overarching themes that stick out for me.

• Creativity and innovation don’t just happen – they require a conscious effort and a willingness to challenge the status quo. We as L&D professionals have a responsibility to question, rather than accept, the way things have been done before and find ways to generate and drive forwards new ideas.
• We mustn’t lose sight of who we are designing learning solutions for – the users. It’s all too easy to give in to business requests for ‘click Next to continue’ e-learning or to allow dense, dry subject matter to become an excuse for ‘crapathy’. Keeping the end users front and centre in mind helps to deliver engaging, effective learning.
• Sometimes, a back-to-basics approach is the right one. Edward de Bono held a full auditorium in the palm of his hand armed only with an armchair, OHP and pack of coloured pens – demonstrating that, in a world of flashy gadgets and ever-changing technology, less can indeed be more.

There is no shortage of blogs and articles out there already reflecting on Learning Technologies 2012 (and I’ll be adding more of my own over the next few days and weeks). I’d recommend following Kate Graham, the event’s official rapporteur, to make sure you don’t miss the best of the bunch.

I’m interested to know whether the three themes that stuck out for me were the same for other people – do we all take away different messages from these events depending on our roles, interests and pre-existing ideas, or are there a few broad themes that defined the conference for all attendees?

What you should look for when doing a QA

Last week I set out the benefits of QA. But what does ‘QA’ actually mean? To many people, it is synonymous with ‘proof-reading’, but that’s a very simplistic view. QA stands for quality assurance, and that means quality in every respect.

If you were QA-ing a newspaper article, the review would of course cover spelling and grammar. But it would also cover factual accuracy, tone of voice, sources for quotations and so on. You’d probably want to check the headline appropriately reflected the thrust of the article, and that any accompanying photographs made sense with the story.

If you were QA-ing a dining table, however, there’s no proof-reading required. Instead, you’d probably check that the wood was in good condition, that the dimensions of the table top are suitable for the given number of people, that the four table legs were all the same height, and that everything was screwed together securely.

So, when you’re QA-ing an e-learning course, what are you looking for? It depends a little on the stage of the process: what you check at storyboarding stage will be slightly different from what you check once it’s built. But overall I think there are three categories of things you should check during an e-learning QA.

• Textual: This covers spelling, punctuation and grammar, of course. But it also covers accuracy – are all the facts and figures correct? Obviously the subject matter expert will need to check this too, but you should pick up any contradictions or any statistics that don’t add up, for example. Your textual QA should also cover the tone of voice – is it appropriate and is it adopted throughout the course? This is particularly important if more than one person has been involved in storyboarding. Finally, consistency: someone once told me consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative, but I maintain it’s important. Some learners might not notice inconsistent writing, but some will and it disrupts the flow and experience. Is the writing consistently UK or US English spelling? Are capital letters used consistently? Are bullet points punctuated consistently?
• Visual: This covers the layout, which should be user-friendly and clear, as well as more detailed visual considerations. Check every text box to make sure that no words or letters have been cut off, check that special characters are appearing properly, and check that different elements on screen are aligned appropriately and (yes, again) consistently. Check that all images are of a high enough resolution, that they support the message on that screen, and that any animations or diagrams are easy to understand. And, of course, check that the visual design throughout is in line with any branding guidelines.
• Functional: This covers how the course works. You should be checking that all interactive elements are easy to use and smooth – disjointed or stilted activities aren’t user-friendly. You should also make sure that all interactions have been translated correctly from the storyboard – that right and wrong answers are designated correctly, for example – and that any URLs launch the expected page. Finally, if accessibility is a requirement, this needs checking too, as does the interaction between the course and any system it needs to be hosted on or interact with.

So which of these three areas is most important when carrying out a QA?

That’s a trick question, of course: none of them is more important than the others. Every learner will focus in on different things so you can’t afford to have mistakes in any area – your QA needs to give each element equal attention.

Next up, I’ll share my tips for carrying out a QA of the three elements mentioned above in the most effective, time-efficient way.

(Subscribe via email on the right to make sure you don’t miss my next post, providing three simple tips for efficient, effective QA.)

Six benefits of real quality assurance

Some people hate quality assurance. They enjoy the creative stages of a project, when they can map out storyboards or design ideas and turn policy-speak into friendly, accessible language. They don’t enjoy having to review that friendly, accessible language for typos.

I have to confess though – and I’m sure this won’t surprise anyone who knows me even a little bit – that I do enjoy QA. There’s definitely an editor inside me. I like QA-ing other people’s work most (because it’s much easier and more effective when you’re objective and not close to the content) but I’m pretty happy QA-ing my own work too, when I need to.

Regardless of whether or not you enjoy QA, however, it’s important and something that needs to be done. What’s more, it needs to be done properly – giving something a cursory once-over and ticking the QA box isn’t enough.

A thorough and reliable QA process will eliminate all avoidable errors or bugs before you send something out to stakeholders. This means that they can focus on content and design reviews and it’ll take fewer iterations to get to sign-off point. It also means you can rest assured that any rework required will be about improving and enhancing content and design, rather than fixing mistakes you missed the first time around.

Aside from the financial benefits, giving QA the attention it deserves helps you deliver high quality deliverables, which means happy customers who trust you. You’ll earn a reputation for integrity and excellence (either as an organisation or as an individual (and both matter)) and, because happy customers talk, you’ll benefit from recommendations.

There’s an internal benefit as well: a focus on QA helps to develop a culture of continuous improvement. Colleagues will help each other develop, challenging things and preventing complacency setting in and leading to carelessness. In my experience, high standards are infectious – if one or two members of the team set the right example and pick up even the littlest things, these good habits will spread and you’ll develop a true QA culture.

So I see six key benefits of a thorough and effective QA process and culture:

• You’ll achieve sign-off more quickly.
• You’ll reduce the time and money spent on rework.
• You’ll build trust and respect.
• You’ll earn a reputation for excellence.
• You’ll win word-of-mouth business.
• You’ll nuture ongoing improvement.

What’s not to like?

(Subscribe via email on the right to make sure you don’t miss my next post on what you should look for when doing a QA.)