Humor: Dubious Achievements

"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents, except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."

This opening sentence of Paul Clifford by Edward George Earle Lytton Bulwer-Lytton is widely considered to be the best example of bad writing. Bulwer-Lytton would probably prefer to be remembered for coining such phrases as "the great unwashed", "pursuit of the almighty dollar” and “the pen is mightier than the sword”, but instead is the namesake of San Jose State University’s annual Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, which celebrates bad fiction writing.

From 2001-2005, Technical Standards, Inc., an Escondido, Ca.-based documentations standards and direct-hire company, held a Worst Manual Contest, with a top prize of $100 for the best (well, worst) submission.

“We have a great time with this contest. Everyone has had trouble with a manual,” says Michelle Wier, Director of Operations of Technical Standards, Inc. “That's why we started our company. People like products they understand how to use, and good technical documentation reduces the need for technical support. That’s why good manuals are so important.”

Highlights of the winners include “Is good with the machine plank according to the right method conjunction the hard dish…”, “Select point of action according to gravitational center place the jack on the hardness ground if necessary.”, "5when the pyramid colors of therd layer as4, turn the side to upper", "the conbinetion of gix gidea" and “1. Be tights part E with part I together by fitting M. Also can be installation handle part J in this side.”

Technical writer Darren Barefoot celebrates bad technical writing on his website with the Hall of Technical Documentation Weirdness. Loaded with graphic examples of bad instructions, this site contains such gems as “Do not leave the remote control unit turned face down as it may make the button pressed to hasten buttery end” and "Check stomach disorders; order the motions; relieve restlessness, fretfulness, and similar troubles … Mothers may enjoy ease of mind in the knowledge that these powders contain nothing harmful."

Another web repository of bad technical writing can be found at The Rouges’ Gallery of Bad Documentation. This fun and lively site has numerous examples of confusion, as well as an interesting article on usability testing.

While bad writing abounds, for those writing documentation, procedures and compliance information, writing easy to understand documents is essential. Methods like Information Mapping are teaching writers how to communicate in a fashion that strips out unnecessary information and confusion, leaving a document that leads the reader to the important information quickly.

Research into the method began in 1965 by Robert Horn. “Information Maps are ways of arranging printed information so that the arrangement of the words (and illustrations) on the page reveals something about the form, structure and relationships inherent in the information. The different arrangements of the maps provide spatial analogues to the interconnections and relationships of the information,” Horn wrote in 1967.

Information Mapping doesn’t celebrate bad technical writing like the Hall of Technical Documentation Weirdness, the Worst Manual Contest or the fiction in the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. They do, however, have some excellent samples of bad writing turned into good with examples like:

“As a general rule, a manufacturer is responsible for defects or noncompliance. However, if it can be shown that a product no longer meets a performance standard because of modification of the equipment by unauthorized personnel, installation of improper replacement parts or materials, or unforeseeable abuse of the equipment by the owner or user, there may be a basis for a finding that certain of the notification requirements and the repair, replace and refund provisions (21 CFR 1003 and 1004) will not apply.
”The manufacturer bears the burden of proof in establishing that a defect or noncompliance is due to a cause other than faulty manufacture. The FDA's mandate to protect the public health and safety under P.L. 90-602, together with the *Act's* specification that measures to enforce the control of electronic product radiation be directed against the manufacturer of a product, requires that the primary responsibility of a manufacturer for the safety of his product not be lifted unless the responsibility can clearly be placed on another. FDA will refrain from requiring the manufacturer to repair, replace, or refund only in those situations where there is no reasonable basis for believing that a violation of the *Act* resulted from a manufacturer's act or omission.”

becomes

“Policy: The manufacturer is responsible for product defects or non compliance.

Secretary’s responsibility: The Secretary determines whether an electronic product

·         does not comply with the applicable Federal performance standard, or

·         has a defect that relates to the safety or use of the product

Manufacturer’s Responsibility: The manufacturer bears the burden for defending an allegation of a product defect or non-compliance.”

Do you have a technical writing horror story? Some bad instructions that caused you to waste a weekend assembling a piece of furniture? A Christmas eve bicycle assembly nightmare? We’d love to see them. Send your submissions to editor@evokenews.com. We’ll post the best (or worst) examples here!