I like to know how to properly use the software that I have. In a perfect world, software should be intuitive enough that manuals aren't needed, but any reasonably complex piece of software is going to have a few procedures complicated enough to need some documentation. I'm one of those who still wants a nice printed manual with my software, a luxury that seems to have gone the way of the Amiga. So it is with much passion that I spend time documenting and "FAQing" various BitWise features--documentation that I wonder if it is ever read by anyone other than me as I proofread it for the 3rd time.
I spent all of today working on some online documentation to be used with BitWise Pro Groups, relating to usage and setup of a Pro Group (handy, I hope, for someone who just purchased one). I still can't help but wonder, though, how many people will just plow right in, and maybe miss some of the best features because they don't take the time to read through the documentation and understand how everything fits together. I just know that some organization is going to spend lots of time manually changing settings when pushing out a file would configure many PCs simultaneously... it's not an "obvious" feature but with two online documents about how to use it, I hardly think it can be called "hidden!" :)
Will all documentation eventually go the way of the manual, obsoleted by a generation of "I can do it myself" computer users? On the other hand, maybe this explains the fascination with those so-called hidden features...
It's a compromise. Software needs to be user-friendly so that everyone can get the basic functions up and running within minutes. The manuals are intended for the power users who need to take the functionality to the next level.
My opinion on the subject is that manuals are poorly written reference material. You can't read through them in a linear fashion since they really aren't designed to be "absorbed" that way. Yet, at the same time, when I'm trying to accomplish one of those hidden features, the manuals don't guide me to my answer. AND it takes forever to find the answer to read through all of it anyways. (IMHO why most ppl don't RTFM, me included)
The documentation needs to evolve with the complexity of software and the new information conveying methods need to be developed from their current infant states. I'd really love to see a manual designed around a mindmap, with the headings as questions the users would ask.
That's true that most of us do not use software linearly. How do you find the topical reference provided on the BitWise Support site?
It sounds like you prefer the FAQ format over long-form content? Perhaps the ideal medium would be a searchable, question-based system with not only short answers, but also explanations where needed.
I like the topical reference at your support site, it's quick to browse through the initial directory and the subsequent step-by-step directions. In addition, it covers the major points without getting bogged down in too much detail. Catch is that this method starts to fail when it tries to thoroughly document a program.
FAQ and long-form content (traditional manual) are both not my cup of tea. I'm usually able to pick-up all the basics w/o turning to a FAQ, and when I need quick answers to detailed questions, the latter fails. Actually, so do searchable, question-based systems when the complexity of a program and the detail covered is high enough. Doing searches through Microsoft's knowledge base usually proves fruitless for me unless I sit there for a LONG while. Instead, I always have better success just bringing up an issue in a forum and having someone who has encountered the problem link me to the answer. (More efficient!)
I've generally found Google's regular and group search engines to be one of the best tools at hunting down program-specific problems. (The group one is better imho)
I agree that Microsoft's knowledge base can be pretty useless unless you're willing to wade through lots of results, but by the same token, I think that is partly due to their "keywords" and also their particular searching algorithm that they use. My problem is that the results are usually irrelevant, making it very difficult to find what I need.
Perhaps ultimately the best form of documentation is context-sensitive help from right within the program, like a Just-In-Time FAQ. Unfortunately, this would still leave items that aren't actually a part of the program (or part of its setup) still needing be addressed by another means.
What's wrong with a CHM-style help file? Given the ideal search algorithm, it's just a matter of the user making a request and receiving the answer.
I don't understand why written docs need to be any different. Don't people use/include indices anymore?
CHM would be the "Windows Help?"
Indices are a wonderful thing, unfortunately, they are often incomplete, which makes them somewhat useless. But yes, a well-made index is just as good as a search feature.
i would just like to comment on the microsoft knowledge base; i find that the bestest way of searching through it is not to use microsofts site at all. use google. im dont think i've ever had luck finding what i want using the microsoft search, but i always find what i want with google.
The CHM and Google searches are fine and dandy for doing quick how-to searches on specific issues, which ties back into the "problem" that users don't RTFM and encounter them to begin with. The question is how to make a walk-through manual that isn't linear, and thus a boring pain to read, for the increasingly complex programs we have today.
Hmm, maybe the solution is to make less complex programs? :)
Hah, not all companies have the fortune of having a Kevin on their team. Then again, maybe you should clone yourself a couple million times and compete with the Indian outsourcers. :)