Documentation Size Survey Results
Todd Merriman
todd at toolz.uucp
Fri Feb 8 09:54:36 AEST 1991
These are the results of a recent survey issued on several Usenet
newsgoups concerning the choice of software documentation size. This
summary is being posted to the newsgroups to which the request for response
was orginally posted to, as well as to all who responded, and the
Software Entreprenuer's Mailing List. I will also be summarizing the
results in a letter to the editors of some computer publications.
The original request:
> My company publishes software development tools for UNIX, VMS, and MSDOS.
> We chose to offer the documentation in 8.5x11 format because:
>
> (1) A Usenet poll 2 years ago on comp.sys.ibm.pc,
> comp.unix, and comp.os.vms resulted in responses 2:1 in
> favor of 8.5x11.
>
> (2) It is much, much cheaper to produce user manuals
> in 8.5x11 size (in the U.S.).
>
> I want to re-poll the issue and collect the responses via e-mail.
> I am not convinced that software publishers are generally concerned about
> user's needs and am afraid that most have chosen the PC-size documentation
> because of "compatibility" hype.
>
> If you have an opinion, please tell me what you prefer, and I will
> summarize in a future posting approx. thirty days from now.
> I will also write letters to various trade journals with the results.
>
> Thanks for your help.
I inadvertantly left off Canada as a region distinct from the U.S.,
and this was an oversight on my part. I have separated the Canadian
responses in this summary. I also provided the wrong metric choices,
A3 and A4, when the popular metric choices should have been A4 and
A5: this was pointed out by almost 100% of the overseas responses!
Thanks very much to all those who responded. I think you will find
the results interesting.
Size U.S. Canada Europe Aus/NZ
-------------------------------------------------
8.5x11 63 7 2
5.75x8.5 (PC) 9 1 2
A4 (210x297mm) 15 11
A5 (148x210mm) 6
Other 1
Total = 116
I also included a question about platforms used at the respondent's
site: I thought that this might provide some bias towards
documentation size. But, Usenet members use such a mix of platforms
(only one or two sites checked a single platform) that a broad
exposure to platforms is evident.
VMS 52
Unix 91
MSDOS 84
Mainframe 12
Other 23 (mostly Mac)
Comments
--------
The following comments are mine and may not necessarily reflect
opinions of all respondents.
I think that it is safe to generalize about the differences between
English and metric choices. The clear preference is for a
documentation size that is convenient for the local availability of
binders. In North America, 8.5 x 11 is the popular choice; whereas
everywhere else in the world, metric sizes dominate.
The overall results confirm the results of my survey two years ago:
the so-called PC-size documenation is *NOT* preferred. In fact,
other sizes are preferred at a ratio of about 6:1 rather than the
ratio of 2:1 that I reported from the survey of two years ago. The
current survey recieved a more world-wide response than the previous
survey.
Standardization would be preferable (needless to say), but, as long
as local printers can buy stock much cheaper for selected sizes, it
is clear that publishers will prefer that size. Local printers have
no interest in internationalization or world-wide standards, and it
is obvious that their business is derived mostly from local
merchants. Therefore, it is easy to see why metric sizes are
perceived to be an "odd" size in N. America ("odd" sizes require
cropping, which adds to the cost of printing), and vice-versa in
other parts of the world. Consumers could probably exert pressure on
the market to change this, but meanwhile, why should software
publishers have to bear the cost of standardization? Some smaller
publishers (like me) can't afford to!
Many respondents viewed the software market's swing towards PC sizes as
nothing more than a tag-along with IBM. Many also suggested that the
PC-sized documentation was chosen to prevent easy duplication in
high-speed copiers. One issue is clear, however: PC-sized
documentation is preferred by only a small minority of users!
Unfortunately, computer stores are geared towards this size, and
other sizes will not display well.
Individual Comments
-------------------
One respondent preferred 8.5 x 11 because it fit nicely in his lap.
Another respondent preferred PC-size because it fit nicely in his
lap! I think we need to standardize lap sizes!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
I used to work for Clyde Digital, who produces VMS Security and
Management utilities. We also chose 8.5x11 because our customers
preferred that size. A splinter company (it was actually a thorn in
the side) chose the smaller manual size---and their few customers
complained.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
I much prefer IBM size in IBM binders on my early IBM PC (here in the U.S.)
for two simple reasons:
1. My keyboard has a shelf designed to hold binders, and I use it all the
time. So if manuals are published in another format, they should have
stiff-enough covers so the manual doesn't warp. Spiral bindings can't
be easily labeled on a bookshelf; the ends commonly have flaps that
are labeled. I find these awkward. For this reason, and the fact that
I cannot insert pages of notes in any but a snap binder, I prefer snap
binders.
2. The binder size 8.5 x 11 in. allows the manual to be Xeroxed easily, but
not stored easily. The IBM size is just the height of the average book,
and stores vertically on a bookshelf among them. It is convenient to
store the "TeX" or "APL" manuals with one's books on TeX and APL. 8.5 by
11 is a real problem, and requires an over-height shelf to store
vertically.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
The PC page size is OK. But those ridiculous file folders and boxes
fill my shelves, and I am running out of space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
I very much prefer ring-bound pages to spiral, comb, Perfect,
stapled, and every other binding I've been subjected to by software
documentation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From New Zealand:
I would think most office laserprinters and photocopiers in this part
of the world do A4 by default; our copier only does A3 and A4 (can
enlarge and reduce, of course).
Non-A4 binders are becoming hard to find. Foolscap (I don't remember
the dimensions; maybe 2" longer than A4??) has all but disappeared
since being the most common 10 years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
I would like it if cover letters, trouble report forms, new product
announcements and any other piece of paper I recieve from a vendor
came with holes punched in it so I can put them in the binder with
the manuals. Of course this only applies for manuals that come in a
3 ring binder.
I like a pocket in the front of the binder where I can put notes.
When two manuals are placed in the same binging there should be
something to make it easy to find the divisions between the manuals,
and to make it obvious that there is more than one manual in there.
Tabs or marks on the edges of the pages would do nicely. Too many
times I've looked something up in the index, found a low page number,
opened to that page near the beginning of the volume, wound up in the
wrong manual, and thought the vendor didn't have their act together
because that page doesn't contain what the index said it would
contain.
There must be a section describing what has changed since the
previous release of the software. Lately I've started having a lot
of trouble with buggy software that obviously wasn't field tested
before release. Its getting so I'm afraid to install new versions
and really need a list of good reasons before I commit to an update.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
Please note: We are trying to get away from hard copy documentation.
Currently, we have both DEC and SUN docs on-line via CD-ROM, and those
of several other vendors are available on mag disk, converted to an
appropriate format.
Even a mag tape with the docs is prefered to 14 ft. of documentation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Canada:
If you insist on publishing documentation in binders -- reasonable if
you are doing repeated updates, or expect your users to do so --
please use 8.5x11. Otherwise, please consider publishing docs as a
softbound *book* of standard book size (circa 6x8, I'm not sure
exactly). It actually costs you less, as I understand it.
Peculiar small binders are no service to anyone, common though they
are in the PC world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
I hate manuals in 3 ring binders. I much prefer spiral bound manuals.
To me, they are less bulky, lighter, and easier to lay flat. Yes, I
know they are harder to update. I really like the size and binding
of the USENIX 4.3BSD manuals. More of them sit open on my desk at
one time. I think the plastic spirals or is it GBC? bindings are the
best. If you must use ring binders, please use D or elliptical
rings. Oh, put the manuals in the ring binders yourself. Why should
I, (a well paid professional) have to put the manuals in the binder
when you could hire a $3.50 an hour employee to do it. (Who would
probably do a better job as well.) You wouldn't have to shrink wrap
the paper docs or include all of those cardboard inserts either. But,
do provide tabbed cards to separate manual sections. (This is
probably more important with ring then spiral binding. I think it is
easier to flip through the pages in a spiral bound manual then ring
bound.)
As you can see, I have lots of opinions. Oh, and do use good quality
paper. I have seen some documentation were double sided printing
bleed through from one page to another. Ugh!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
Anything on the order of 6x9; the PC size is probably acceptable, I
don't know what the A3 or A4 sizes are so I can't comment on them.
When I was at Sun, I would, at times, use the System V documentation
in preference to the SunOS documentation, *even when working on
SunOS*, simply because their 6x9-ish documentation fit in my lap and
Sun's 8.5x11 didn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
I favor 8.5x11 for all documentation. It fits on shelves, it can be
photocopied easily (that's the main reason that most companies use
non standard size pages), and it files nicely in file drawer cabinets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
I have a mix of loose leaf 8.5x11, loose leaf 5.7x8.5, and bound
5.7x8.5 and i think that the handiest sizes are the smaller sizes.
They are more like books and less bulky. This, of course, does not
imply that i like messy-dos!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Canada:
I like 8.5 x 11 because you get more info on one page and it takes
more space on a book shelf with fixed shelves. At this site we run
mostly Unix although there is some MacOs and less MSDOS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
In the last product that I worked on, we had to make the same
decision. We had two other factors to consider:
The product was only for use on PC's.
All of the company's previous documentation had been 8.5 x 11.
We decided to go to the smaller (PC) size because we thought that it
would be easier for the user to use at his workstation. In
particular, most "work" stations (PC, terminal, or workstation) are
usually very crowded. The smaller sized document would be easier to
refer to by the user while actually at a "work" station.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
Basically, you can get more information on a single page with 8.5 x 11
-- the DOS-sized manuals require 3 or 4 little pages to see what's on
two facing pages of 8.5x11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Australia:
My preferences are for A4 (210mm x 297 mm) with A5 (148 mm x 210 mm)
as second choice.
US Letter (216 mm x 279 mm) is acceptable BUT life would be much
easier if documentation was prepared using the intersection of A4 and
US Letter, i.e. assume a page size of 210 mm x 279 mm --- that's
about 8 in x 11 in in US units. That way it can be printed on both A4
and US Letter.
For that page size both US 3-hole binders and international 4-hole
and 2-hole (80 mm centres) can be used. Three-hole 80 mm centre will
also work fine with A5, but 'US PC' size seems to come with a wide
variety of hole-punchings.
Perhaps when the United States joins the rest of the world in using
SI units life will get easier.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Australia:
thanx for asking! I am sick and tired of trying to use manuals with
lotsa tiny pages, each with no more than 2 lines of text.. its about
time some decent sized docs were produced! BRAVO! (wanna send a copy
down under?.. I must warn you I am broke so 'I' can't pay :-)
hey.. blind hope is better than none :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Switzerland:
Like anyone, anywhere in Europe, we prefer A4 size documentation. For
us in Europe, 8.5x11 is a real pain. For us, your question is quite
academic. At CERN we have (nearly) everything you can think of in
terms of machines and systems: IBM VM/XA, Cray UNICOS, VAX VMS, VAX
Ultrix, DECstations Ultrix, Suns, Apollos, IBM PCs, Macs, Nords, ...
The first question to raise when it comes to documentation size is:
"Where will our documentation go ? US & Canada, Europe, or both ?".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Europe (France, I think):
Did you really mean A3? That's so big that it's only useful if you're
publishing a manual full of technical diagrams.
I wasn't quite sure of the order of my two choices. A5 is convenient
to refer to and doesn't occupy too much space on the desk. A4 is more
convenient for adding to. In fact, I use both: A5 for the standard
manuals which come with the system, A4 for locally added & public
domain software.
I prefer the metric sizes because I'm in Europe, but I don't really
see a lot to choose between PC/A5 or 8.5x11/A4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.K.:
I suspect you really meant A4 and A5! [A4 corresponds to 8.5''x11''
and A5 is close to "PC size" whereas A3 is the size of an artists's
sketchpad (300 mm by 420 mm is about, um, 12''x17'').]
We have all our Sun docs in USA 8.5''x11'' in 3-ring binders and
locally-produced docs are almost always A4, kept in 2-ring binders.
(If they didn't supply 3-ring binders it would be a real pain
obtaining them -- 2-ring or occasional 4-rings are the norm here.)
A5/PC-size binders are really cute and probably easier to fling about
the room but I don't think they are worth paying extra for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Canada:
When I lived and worked in the UK I preferred A4, of course, since it
fitted into the binders and on the shelves and into folders.
In Canada I prefer 8.5x11, because, although it's not such a pleasant
shape, it fits in the folders, filing cabinets, binders, etc.
It's not as simple as `choose the majority'.
If you use something smaller all round than either (e.g. A5), there is
no problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
Another vote for 8.5x11. I have lots of notebooks that can hold it,
I have a three hole punch that fits it, and finally, you get more on a
page for roughtly the same bookshelf space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
7x9 in: We are going to perfect-bound format.
We use this cut size because it conforms
to usual practice in the publishing industry
for professional books in softcover format.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Australia:
8.5x11--------------------No! No! No!
PC (approx. 5.75x8.5)-----No! No! No!
A3 (Metric)---------------No - too large for most practical use.
A4 (Metric)---------------YES! This is not merely "metric". It is the
ISO (i.e. INTERNATIONAL) standard. The sooner
the US wakes up, the better we will all be.
Other, please specify ____A5 - another ISO size. This one is quite
close to the PC documentation size, and
should be used instead.
As you are probably aware, all the ISO sizes have the same aspect
ratio, so that any page printed on one size can be photo-reduced or
enlarged and fit exactly on any other size, shoudl you require this.
If your A4 or A5 documentation requires a few diagrams that won't fit
on a normal page, you can easily add an A3 or A4 foldout page
(respectively). You do not need to generate special paper sizes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Switzerland:
This is probably no surprise... Europeans really use a lot of A4
paper! If it is in a binder, I prefer the 4 holes standard (8 cm
distance) over the american (?) 3 holes binders.
Of course, bound books can be any size.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From New Zealand:
A4 as it is the preferred standard here. 8.5 x 11 uses odd sized
binders which don't match up well with other documentation. Mind you,
every package uses different sizes and bindings so on a software
shelf there isn't much difference... 8-) If you're producing one
universal set of manuals with maybe local appendices, then stick with
whats cheapest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Holland:
We prefer manuals of PC-dimensions, not because of what you call
'"compatibility" hype' but mostly because this type of manual takes
up less space on your desktop. Our user base consists mainly of
editors and journalists (we produce editorial computer systems). But
I have to admit that these small manuals are a lot more expensive to
produce than 8.5x11 or A4 (in Europe) ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
I am also involved in producing manuals, and we use both formats. I
have a strong preference for the 8.5 X 11 size. Off the top of my
head, here are my observed advantages for each format.
Large (8.5 X 11):
* easy to photocopy
* easy to fax
* more information on page (less page flipping)
* less pages, and for large manual sets, less binders (due to previous
point)
* complex diagrams don't need to be shrunk so much, hence graphics more
legible
* can comfortably use point size 10 or 11 for body text
* facilitates hanging indent formats
* easy to print or mass produce
* looks good on shelf when next to other 8.5 X 11 binders
Small (5.5 X 8.5):
* looks good on shelf when next to other 5.5 X 8.5 binders
* fits on user's lap or crowded desk easier
Did I vote for the right candidate?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.K.:
What I particularly dislike is on-line (or disc/tape) postscript
documentation which is designed for 8.5x11 paper. I always have
terrible problems printing these on Apple LaserWriters / DEC
printservers, ..., which only (in Europe anyway) have A4 paper trays.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
The choice of the small format is driven almost entirely by the
difficulty of copying the manuals. It is a mild form of copy
protection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Australia:
I'd like to add that it is also easier to photocopy larger format
paper (US Letter and A4) without waste.
Also, I'm just so annoyed that a lot of US Leter documentation doesn't
copy easily to A4 with an adequate binding margin. And A4 doesn't fit
into US Letter {2,3,4} ring binders. In both these cases going the
other way is fine: A4 to US Letter photocopying works and putting US
Letter docs in A4 binders is just fine.
A4 looks nicer too. Much more human form factor :-)
I'd like to know how many peole request A3. That's really weird! :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
Here is my response to your survey. Thank you very much for taking
the time to do this; I hope it convinces some folks to move away from
the "PC" sized documentation.
[ed: dream on!]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
The most important thing is that there is complete paper documentation
and that it lay flat on your desk when you are using it. It also must
stand up on your bookshelf when you are _not_ using it. The type of
binding is far more important than the size of the paper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Ireland:
You don't ask about the binding, but generally I would prefer what I
think is called 'spiral bound' (There's no spiral, but its made of
wire). This is because, unlike ring-bound, it does not add much to
the thickness of the manual, it will stay open flat, and it can be
opened through 360 degrees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
What I really hate is 8.5x11 updates to the PC style manuals.
Where am I supposed to put them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.K.:
Todd - I'ld be surprised to hear that *any* people out of the
immediate sphere of influence of the USA would really prefer 8.5 x
11; I know of no countries other than those in N America that use it
(note that I've travelled to East Asia and to Australasia), except
for documentation that comes from N America. So we struggle on,
having to keep old manual binders that are in reasonable condition,
lest one of the current ones falls apart.
I was surprised that you listed A3 (who *on earth* would want
something that size?), and that you didn't list A5, which is a
convenient pocket sort of size.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the U.S.:
We use 8.5x11 3-ring binder almost exclusively. (Exceptions: 11x17
folded to 8.5x11 booklets or 8.5x11 folded to 5.5x8.5 booklets but
only for high-volume, small-content installation instructions.)
Primary reason is, as you indicate, cost. We rely on print vendors
and they are set to stock and handle that size. If you want something
different, you pay more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Comp.unix.programmer
mailing list