New modes of help: Best practices for instructional video

Technical Communication

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 195-206

  Swarts, Jason ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Communication design; Help documentation; Instructional video

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867553682     PISSN: 00493155     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Albers, M. J. (2008). Human-information interaction. In Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM international conference on Design of communication SIGDOC 08, SIGDOC '08, 117-124. Retrieved from http:// portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1456536.1456560
2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
3. Bishop, M. J., & Cates, W. M. (2001). Theoretical foundations for sound's use in multimedia instruction to enhance learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 5-22.
4. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). e-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
5. Farkas, D. K. (1999). The logical and rhetorical construction of procedural discourse. Technical Communication, 46, 42-54.
6. Gillette, D. (2005). Incorporating motion into onscreen presentations of technical information. Technical Communication, 32, 138-155.
7. Grice, R. A., & Ridgway, L. S. (1993). Usability and hypermedia: toward a set of usability criteria and measures. Technical Communication, 40, 429-437.
8. Horn, R. (2004). Rhetorical devices and tight integration. In C. Handa (Ed.), Visual rhetoric in a digital world (pp. 372-373). Boston, MA: Bedford/ St. Martin's.
9. Hull, G. A., & Nelson, M. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22, 224.
10. Khaslavsky, J., & Shedroff, N. (1999). Understanding the seductive experience. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 45-49.
11. Kress, G. (2004). Multimodality, multimedia, and genre. In C. Handa (Ed.), Visual rhetoric in a digital world (pp. 38-54). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.
12. Mehlenbacher, B. (2002). Assessing the usability of on-line instructional materials. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2002(91), 91-98.
13. Morain, M., & Swarts, J. (2012). YouTutorial: A framework for assessing instructional online video. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21, 6-24.
14. Novick, D. G., & Ward, K. (2006a). Why don't people read the manual? In Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on Design of communication SIGDOC 06, SIGDOC '06, 11.
15. Novick, D. G., & Ward, K. (2006b). What users say they want in documentation. SIGDOC '06. New York, NY: ACM Press. Retrieved from http://doi. acm.org/10.1145/1166324.1166346
16. Redish, J. C. (1993). Understanding readers. In C. M. Barnum & S. Carliner (Eds.), Techniques for technical communicators (pp. 15-41). New York, NY: Macmillian.
17. Rosenfeld, L., & Morville, P. (2002). Information architecture for the World Wide Web. Cambridge, MA: O'Reilly.
18. Shirky, C. (2005). Ontology is overrated: Categories, links, and tags. Retrieved from http://www.shirky.com/ writings/ontology_overrated.html
19. Swarts, J. (2004). Textual grounding: How people turn texts into tools. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 34, 67-89.
20. Van der Meij, H., Karreman, J., & Steehouder, M. (2009). Three decades of research and professional practice on printed software tutorials for novices. Technical Communication, 56, 265-292.