+ All Categories
Home > Documents > The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human...

The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human...

Date post: 19-Dec-2015
Category:
View: 215 times
Download: 1 times
Share this document with a friend
Popular Tags:
45
The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K . Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington Seattle, Washington, USA http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/ [email protected]
Transcript
Page 1: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures

David K . FarkasDept. of Human Centered Design & EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattle, Washington, USAhttp://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/[email protected]

Page 2: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Big idea

• Troubleshooting procedures always exhibit a diagnosis-resolution structure

• Understanding this structure leads to important insights for design

2

Page 3: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Presentation vs. proceedings paper

• Proceedings paper has more depth• Presentation has more illustrations and explicit

guidelines

• The presentation slides are available here:http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/IPCC.pptx

3

Page 4: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Acknowledgments

• Connie Olberg (formerly) at Microsoft and her user support team

4

Page 5: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Background:What Are Troubleshooting Procedures?

Page 6: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Troubleshooting content is problem focused

Is this your problem?Here is how to fix it.

6

Problem = Symptom

Page 7: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Similar to medical diagnosis and treatment

• Similar to a doctor asking a patient to describe symptoms and then indicating treatment

• Even more similar to a first-aid manual

7

Page 8: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

In most cases this problem is a bug, incompatibility, or component failure

8

EZGrab 3.0 freezes or closes unexpectedly

My computer no longer plays audio or produces any sound from the speakers or headset

Page 9: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

TPs are written for . . .

• Support Centers/KBs (Knowledge Bases)

• Help systems and manuals• Forum posts• Etc.

9

Page 10: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Simple TP in a small support center

10

Page 11: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Usually, TPs are more challenging to design and write than standard procedures

Page 12: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Complex TP from an Adobe Acrobat support center article on printing problems (excerpt)

12

Author
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/316/316508.html
Page 13: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Some problems can be handled by remote intervention

13

Page 14: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Forums are an alternative to TPs

2/20/09 6:17 pmTony: I used to be able to open two different ppt files in different windows. But somehow when I open the file it shows up in only one window.

2/20/09 11:46 pmMike MVP: Open both your presentations, then select the View Tab, Arrange All. Always a good idea to mention which version of PowerPoint your using.

2/21/09 8:46 pmTony: Maybe you misunderstand what I meant. I mean that when you open two ppt files, the screen will show . . .

Page 15: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure:The Diagnosis Phase

Author
Note: This is a shortened version of the deck I used in class yesterday. DF
Page 16: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

TPs always exhibit a diagnosis-resolution structure: Simplest case

M

Title

Explains method

Describes symptomDiagnosis phase

Resolution phase

16

Author
From the standpoint of diagnosis, the user’s problem, including associated conditions that the user may or may not have recognized, are symptoms
Page 17: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Possible causes with their own specific symptoms:

Browser settingsRouter problemsFirewall settingsWi-Fi Internet connection problemsParental control softwareService is downOlder version of client software

More complex problems will exhibit multiple symptoms

Title

17

I cannot connect to the service

Page 18: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Dia

gnos

is ph

ase

Multiple symptoms in a flat list

S S S S

Title

Specific symptoms

Broad symptom

18

I cannot connect to the service

Page 19: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Tree of symptomsD

iagn

osis

ph

ase

S

S S

S

S S

Title

More specific symptoms

Broad symptom

Still more specific symptoms

19

Author
Should the title be a tan symptom?
Page 20: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Tree of symptoms

Statements of symptoms

S

S

S

S

20

“I am having trouble with my modem”

=

Page 21: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Isolating the cause

More specific statements of symptoms

S

S

S

21

Page 22: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Identifying a successful method—we hope

M

22

Page 23: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure: The Resolution Phase

Author
Note: This is a shortened version of the deck I used in class yesterday. DF
Page 24: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Key distinction: Method vs. solution path

• Method: A single procedure intended to solve a problem

• Solution path: A broader approach to solving a problem, usually consisting of several related methods

24

M M M P=

Author
Notes only
Page 25: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

A solution path consisting of multiple methods(fixed sequence)

M

M

Contact your system administrator

MJ

J

J

Res

olut

ion

phas

e

25

Author
Examples
Page 26: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

A solution path consisting of multiple methods(variable sequence)

M

M

MJ

J

J

Res

olut

ion

phas

e

26

Author
Examples?
Page 27: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Res

olut

ion

phas

eA solution path consisting of multiple methods(fixed sequence)

M M

M

JJ

J

M M

M

JJ

J

M M

M

JJ

J

27

Author
Examples?
Page 28: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Res

olut

ion

phas

eA solution path consisting of multiple methods(variable sequence)

M M

M

JJ

J

M M

M

JJ

J

M M

M

JJ

J

28

Author
Examples?
Page 29: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

You can empower users to choose solution path based on their own priorities

P Path splits with user decision

P P

29

Author
Do it all in terms of method?Drop path?
Page 30: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Guidelines: 1. General guidelines2. Guidelines from diagnosis-resolution structure

Author
Note: This is a shortened version of the deck I used in class yesterday. DF
Page 31: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

General guidelines (tech comm, instructional design, etc.)

• To minimize expenditure of time and effort, strive for clarity, brevity, etc

• To minimize user’s risk of failure, provide sufficient information, accurate information, etc

• To motivate users to attempt and stick with TPs, strive for an unintimidating appearance and offer encouragement

31

Page 32: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Example: Motivating users at the outset of a TP

32

This method has a high probability of success. It is lengthy but easy to follow.

Page 33: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Guidelines: 1. General guidelines2. Five guidelines from diagnosis-resolution structure

Author
Note: This is a shortened version of the deck I used in class yesterday. DF
Page 34: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Users must be to identify the TP that applies to their problem

• Phrase titles and symptom descriptions carefully (at audience’s level)

• Error messages are excellent symptoms, especially when they are specific to a particular problem

• Sometimes you need two articles, each articulating a different symptom

34

Page 35: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Be wary of titles that express causation

The application will not initialize

35

Author
Yes and no. The closer a title comes to expressing causation, the clear the title is to a knowledgeable user. You're assuming that you know the cause of the problem and that the user can recognize what you're describing.So, if the user understands "the application will not initialize" and is in a position to determine that this is (or isn't her problem), you've moved forward quite a bit.this is a little analogous to standard procedures in which the conceptual element elaborates on the topic title. The conceptual element provides a little more detail than the title. If the user reads the conceptual element and agrees that this is indeed the appropriate ttile, you are that further along.Also, metadata is the first connection between the user's problem and symptoms and the appropriate KB article.
Page 36: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Two titles, each describing very different symptoms of the same problem

The status light sometimes flashes red

36

My connection speed is sometimes very slow

Page 37: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Strive for a specific understanding of the problem

• The more you know about the problem, the simpler the resolution phase

37

Page 38: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Favor variables sequences. Favor user empowerment.

• When possible, bypass methods and solution paths that won’t work

• When possible, allow the user to choose a solution path that meets their particular needs

38

Page 39: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Decide how deeply to explain the cause of the problem

• Most users don’t care about the cause• When user actions brought on the problem, it is

necessary to explain how to prevent a recurrence

39

Page 40: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Be wary of very difficult methods. Be wary of too many methods

• Lengthy procedures and articles are demotivators • Difficult methods are demotivators

– Recognize the law of diminishing returns– When appropriate, hand off to live support, etc

40

Page 41: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

TPs will remain important

• User’s often need assistance • Vendor is often the best or only source of reliable

information

• Finding a balance:– Crafted content– Remote intervention– Users helping users

41

Page 42: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Thank you

42

Page 43: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Forum content may not be well crafted

Page 44: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

Complex TP from a Microsoft KB article (excerpt)

44

Page 45: The Diagnosis-Resolution Structure in Troubleshooting Procedures David K. Farkas Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering University of Washington.

The complete KB article

45


Recommended