Five advantages of modular content

Normally, authors write a text, for example a novel, completely from beginning to end. This makes sense because in most texts, no or only a few passages are repeated. Technical documentation differs from this.

One example is warnings in a manual: if there is a danger when using a product, the manual must warn of this danger and not just in one single place. After all, the same danger can occur with different operating procedures. Technical writers cannot assume that the customer always reads the manual fully from beginning to end. Usually, it is more likely that users only read the part of the manual that they need at that time, so this part must also contain the warning.

This means that the same text passage appears again and again in the manual, which is why it makes sense to write this passage (e.g., the warning) only once and then insert it again and again in the appropriate places.

This is also advisable because the text passage that has now been isolated is probably not only needed in the manual for just one device. It is likely that other devices have similar potential hazards – so technical writers can use this module in the manuals for many different products.

While with linear writing in Word documents, content can often only be used in other contexts by using Copy & Paste, reusing content is much more convenient with modular writing. Modules, such as text elements in operating instructions, are only created once and are then reused in different contexts.

Prime examples of these modules are the functional description and the assembly instructions for a component or a specific section of a system. If this component or this section of the system is also used in other systems, the corresponding content module can also be reused in the documentation.

As a text element is only written once and not several times, this saves a considerable amount of time. The quality of the text is also improved. In linear writing, variations of what is actually the same text passage easily creep in. Sometimes these variations are insignificant, but they can also contain inaccuracies and errors. You can avoid this by keeping the passage in one single place and then inserting it repeatedly.

One of the biggest advantages of modularization is for translation. Translation costs can often be several times the cost of the original manual. Being able to reuse text due to modularization eliminates a large proportion of the translation volume, as the same text passage is not translated over and over again. Instead, it is only translated once and then used several times in many places.

Texts are much easier to change. Let’s take a look at what we need to do when a technical writer has to revise a passage in linear texts. In this case, they first have to identify all the documents in which this passage appears. Then they have to find all the places in the document where this passage is used. And last but not least, they have to change the text in the same form in all occurrences. With a module, on the other hand, they only need to make the change once. The update is then automatically applied to all the documents.

The connection between the module and the instances where it is reused applies across all the foreign languages, variants, and document types used. The module exists in its own right, enabling it to be used in different contexts.

Each module has metadata associated with it that provide information about the type of module (e.g., manual, description), the target group, and much more. Possible options for the metadata are information such as product variants or even metadata from the iiRDS context. Modules can therefore be classified using metadata and managed by computerized systems.

At the same time, metadata enable you to find the specific module you’re looking for quickly and efficiently. You can also combine different search criteria. The search results then include all the relevant modules, for example, all the modules of the “manual” type for variant A that have not yet been translated.

To give you a clear example relating to variants, one module contains an instruction about how specific master data are created in the “Premium” software variant. This module is also used for the “Classic” software variant but not for the “Light” software variant. If this module’s metadata are maintained, you can find it and use it again more easily. You could then use the metadata to automatically compile documents that only contain modules for the “Premium” variant, for example.

Quality assurance can also be significantly simplified and accelerated in the form of editorial and technical reviews. With a component content management system, reviews are not just limited to content that has not yet been approved. Each module’s metadata tell the content management system whether its content has already received its editorial or technical approval or not.

Sooner or later, anyone who is modularizing their content will also standardize a fair amount of it. This standardization involves standard text wording, module types and sizes, a filing system for managing the modules, etc. For technical writers, this means that they have clear guidelines for their day-to-day work on the content management system, which prevents misunderstandings and, at the same time, simplifies authoring work.

Modularized content is therefore almost always also standardized content and goes hand in hand with a standardized authoring process. This has a positive impact on all the downstream processes.

Content in a component content management system such as SCHEMA ST4 is media-neutral. This means that the content, structure, and layout of your output formats are created and edited separately from one another, enabling content to be combined as required and only given its individual layout after this stage depending on the desired output format.

So in the case of software documentation, for example, a module of the manual type will be both part of the user manual in PDF format and published on an HTML page that is connected to a user interface of the software.

Ideally, technical writing departments should be able to fully compile their documents from reusable content. In practice, however, this will not always work, given that sometimes a text passage is only needed once in a single document.

Other text passages differ only minimally from product to product. This is annoying, but can be managed in many cases, as often these slight variations can be predicted systematically. For example, if only the product name or the label of a user interface element changes in a specific module for each final document. For systematic differences like these it is best to create placeholders in the modules. When you are creating the final document, the placeholders are then filled with the required variable.

The size of the modules should be as large as possible, because even though reuse saves time, each module must be managed. However, the smaller the module, the greater the administrative burden. Usually, a module consists of two to three paragraphs. However, there is nothing to be said against defining entire chapters as modules if they appear repeatedly in identical form in the final documents. This is the case, for example, with the instructions for disposal or the warranty conditions, which are used in (almost) the same form in all manuals. The ideal module size therefore depends on the specific document material and the reusability of the content elements.

Modularization of content results in an improvement in the quality of the documentation products and speeds up authoring processes. A component content management system such as SCHEMA ST4 works on this basis. It reduces a lot of the workload for technical writers through reusable content. New documentation projects for variants can be created quickly. Technical writers know at all times which modules are used where in operating instructions and are already translated. Overall, this makes the technical writer’s main tasks – content creation and management – much simpler and more efficient.