skip to main content
10.1145/2379057.2379059acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Communication as reducing uncertainty

Published: 03 October 2012 Publication History

Abstract

Technical communicators are now generating large amounts of content (which may or may not be web-based), that is used to communicate concepts and ideas for decision making. They are creating information that helps readers reduce their uncertainty about the overall situation and its future development as they read to decide. The information needs of complex information situations can be redefined as working to reduce the uncertainty people have about the situation. It helps people build a clearer picture of the overall situation and reduces uncertainty about the future development of the situation. This redefinition reshapes a design team's goal from answering the question of "what information does the reader need?" to "what information reduces the reader's uncertainty?" As design teams work with their personas or other information analysis methods, they need to remain focused on determining how people use that information to reduce their uncertainty. Too many information creation projects suffer from different groups all lobbing for their content to be included; a focus on reducing uncertainty helps cut through that lobbying. By focusing on the reduction of uncertainty, we have a basis for determining what information is needed, measuring what information is used, and judging the communication effectiveness. Questions posed before, during or after a usability test should be constructed specifically to measure the reduction in uncertainty.

References

[1]
Ackoff, R. (1967). Management misinformation systems. Management Science, 14, 147--156.
[2]
Albers, M. (1996). Decision-making: A missing facet of effective documentation. Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation. Raleigh NC. October 21--22, 1996.
[3]
Albers, M. (2000). Information design for web sites which support complex decision making. Proceedings of the STC 2000 Annual Conference. Orlando FL. May 21--24, 2000.
[4]
Albers, M. (2003). Multidimensional audience analysis for dynamic information. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. 33.3, 263--279.
[5]
Albers, M. (2004a). Communication of Complex Information: User Goals and Information Needs for Dynamic Web Information. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[6]
Albers, M. (2004b). Signal to noise ratio of information in documentation. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation. (pp. 41--44). Memphis TN. October 11--13, 2004.
[7]
Albers, M. (2009). Design for effective support of user intentions in information-rich interactions. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. 39.2, 177--194.
[8]
Albers, M. (2010). Usability and information relationships: Considering content relationships when testing complex information. In M. Albers & B. Still (Eds.), Usability of Complex Information Systems: Evaluation of User Interaction. (pp. 109--131). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
[9]
Albers, M. (2011). Contextual awareness as measure of human-information interaction in usability and design. Poster presented at HCI International. Orlando, FL. July 12--14, 2011.
[10]
Bradac, J. (2001). Theory comparison: Uncertainty reduction, problematic integration, uncertainty management, and other curious constructs. Journal of Communication, 51, 456--476.
[11]
Dekker, S. (2011). Drift into Failure: From Hunting Broken Components to Understanding Complex Systems. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
[12]
Drucker, P. (1998). The coming of the new organization. Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management. (pp. 1--19.). Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
[13]
Ganzach, Y & Schul, Y. (1995). The influence of quantity of information and goal framing on decisions. Acta Psychologica, 89, 23--36.
[14]
Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. (2004). Distinction bias: Misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86.5, 680--695.
[15]
Klein, G. (1999). Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
[16]
McNamara, D.S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247--287.
[17]
Mirel, B. (1992). Analyzing audiences for software manuals: A survey of instructional needs for 'real world tasks'. Technical Communication Quarterly, 1.1, 15--35.
[18]
Mirel, B. (2003). Interaction Design for Complex Problem Solving: Developing Useful and Usable Software. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
[19]
Morrison, J., Pirolli, P., & Card, S. (2001). A taxonomic analysis of what world wide web activities significantly impact people's decisions and actions. Presented at the Association for Computing Machinery's Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle. March 31 - April 5, 2001.
[20]
Sanders, L. (2012). Enriched with information: New theory doesn't limit consciousness to the brain. Science News, 181.5, 22--25.
[21]
Schneider, B. (2002). Clarity in context: Rethinking misunderstanding. Technical Communication,49.2, 210--218.
[22]
Shannon, C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379--423.
[23]
Simon, H. (1979). Models of Thought. New Haven, CT: Yale UP.
[24]
Woods, D., Patterson, E., Roth, E. (2002). Can we ever escape from data overload? A cognitive systems diagnosis. Cognition, Technology, & Work 4, 22--36.

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. Communication as reducing uncertainty

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGDOC '12: Proceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on Design of communication
    October 2012
    386 pages
    ISBN:9781450314978
    DOI:10.1145/2379057
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 03 October 2012

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. complex information
    2. contextual awareness
    3. decision making
    4. information relationships
    5. uncertainty

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    SIGDOC 2012
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 355 of 582 submissions, 61%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)37
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 29 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media