Functional analysis for document design

Technical Communication

Volumn 51, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 387-398

  Lentz, Leo ^a   Maat, Henk Pander ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 4344623480     PISSN: 00493155     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Anderson, P. V. 1987. Technical communication. A reader centered approach. San Diego, CA: HBJ Publishers.
2. Askehave, I. 1999. Communicative purpose as genre determinant. Hermes: Journal of linguistics 23:13-23.
3. _, and K. K. Zethsen 2003. Communication barriers in public discourse. The patient package insert. Document design 4:22-41.
4. Chevalier, A., and M. Ivory. 2003. Web site designs: Influences of designer's expertise and design constraints. International journal of human-computer studies 58:57-87.
5. Clark, H. H., and T. Carlson. 1982. Hearers and speech acts. Language 58:332-373.
6. de Jong, M., and P. J. Schellens 2000. Meervoudige doelen en doelgroepen in voorlichtingsbrochures [Multiple purposes and audiences in public brochures]. In Over de grenzen van de taalbeheersing: Onderzoek naar taal, tekst, en communicatie, ed. R. Neutelings, N. Ummelen and A. Maes. Den Haag, Netherlands: Sdu, pp. 263-272.
7. Farkas, D. K. 1999. The logical and rhetorical construction of procedural discourse. Technical communication 46:42-54.
8. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
9. Hackos, J. 1994. Managing your documentation projects. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
10. Hoeken, H. 1995. The design of persuasive texts: Effects of content, structure and style on attitude information. PhD dissertation, Tilburg University.
11. Jansen, F., and L. Lentz. 1996. Changing standards in technical communication. Journal of technical writing and communication 26:357-370.
12. Mårdsjö, K. 1994. Man-text-technology: Technical manuals as means of communication. In Quality of technical documentation, ed. M. Steehouder, Carel Jansen, Pieter van de Poort, and Ron Verheijen. Amsterdam, Netherlands/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, pp. 185-200.
13. Ormerod, T. 2000. Using task analysis as a primary design method: The SGT approach. In Cognitive task analysis, ed. J. Schraagen, S. Chipman, and V. Shalin. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 181-200.
14. Pander Maat, H. 1997. What authors and readers do with side effects information on drugs. In Discourse analysis and evaluation: Functional approaches, ed. L. Lentz and H. Pander Maat. Amsterdam, Netherlands/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, pp. 111-138.
15. _, and L. Lentz 1994. Patient information leaflets: a functional content analysis and an evaluation study. In Functional communication quality, eds L. van Waes, E. Woudstra, and P. van den Hoven. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi, pp. 137-148.
16. Samp, J. A., and D. H. Solomon. 1999. Communicative responses to problematic events in close relationships II: The influence of five facets of goals on message features. Communication research 26:193-239.
17. Schellens, P. J., M. de Jong, and M. Witteveen. 1997. Functional evaluation of public information about laws and regulations. In Discourse analysis and evaluation: Functional approaches, ed. L. Lentz and H. Pander Maat. Amsterdam, Netherlands/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, pp. 157-175.
18. Wilson, S. R. 1997. Developing theories of persuasive message production: The next generation. In Message production: Advances in communication theory, ed. J. O. Green. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 15-43.