User-centeredness has become a concept of much interest in a number of fields. Systems engineering, architecture, usability research and computer documentation, to name a few, are all areas of study which have, to one degree or another, adopted the terminology of user-centered philosophy in order to come to grips with the problem of how to design for users' needs.  While there is much positive to be said about applying user-centered concepts to any discipline that wishes to pursue it, there is also a danger that the concept and philosophy of user-centered design could become, at best, empty rhetoric, and, at worst, fuel for lip service that could serve to undermine the humanitarian goals of a user-centered ethic.  One concept which has already suffered a similar fate is that of “problem-solving.” Problem-solving has become, essentially, a hollow term when used by certain disciplines or institutions. For example, it is commonplace to hear representatives of business and industry refer to the need for 'good problem-solvers' in the world of business.  One answer to this call has been the adoption of the terminology of problem-solving by the business curricula of many college and university business schools. At least one critic of current business school curricula has mentioned that theories of problem-solving have been diluted by the time they reach students (1). My own experience in teaching business writing at two universities has shown similar characteristics. Many of the business majors want to refer to themselves as “good problem-solvers” in their job application letters, but when asked to elaborate on or give an example of this, they often have simplified or inaccurate ideas of what should constitute an understanding of rich and powerful strategies.  Certainly, the research and theory-building of Simon and Newell (2), or G. Polya (3) is applicable to the academic and workplace settings of business, but somehow the terminology of the theory lost its relevance during the translation.  My purpose in this article is to discuss how user-centered computer documentation can avoid a similar fate. At present I fear our direction is veering in the direction of such a fate, and that one step toward correcting our course is to develop a clear theoretical understanding of what user-centeredness means to documentation. This means that although there may be a tacit theory which underlies current applications, it is important to make the theory visible, and thereby illuminate the gaps that may exist.  In addition, my focus will also be upon the contribution that user-centered theory can bring to our understanding of how to design for the different media of computer documentation. As we all know, online and hypermedia documentation is becoming a central charge of our profession, and user-centered theory can go a long way in helping us understand the similarities and differences among the different media.
['Bob Johnson']
User-centeredness, situatedness, and designing the media of computer documentation