“Content” is the conceptual information within documentation.
Content should be...
Software development benefits from philosophies and principles such as DRY, KISS, code reuse, and many more. With these commonly understood and accepted standards, developers can hold themselves and each other accountable to producing high-quality code.
This set of principles seeks to define similar standards for software documentation that, when practiced, will foster clean and intuitive content. The end goal is ultimately to delight and empower readers by making information easier for them to acquire.
“Content” is the conceptual information within documentation.
Content should be...
A “source” refers to a system used to store and edit content. Examples of sources include: text files written using reStructuredText or Markdown, HTML content in a CMS database, help text stored within strings in application code, code comments to be assembled later into formalized documentation, and others too.
All sources should be...
A “publication” refers to a single, cohesive tool that readers use to consume documentation. It may be static or interactive — digital or paper. Multiple publications may be created from a single source (e.g. web and PDF versions of the same manual). Although rarer, multiple sources may be used to create a single publication. More examples of publications include: API reference, man page, command line ``–help`` output, in-application help tips, online tutorials, internal engineering manuals, and others too.
Each publication should be...
Begin documenting before you begin developing.
Before coding, write requirements and specifications that also serve as the first draft of documentation. These texts no doubt will need a bit of clean up before publishing, but by front-loading the documentation, you lay a clear path forwards. Early documentation also helps facilitate peer feedback and group decisions to guide your work. This model is the sentiment behind Documentation Driven Design.
In the documentation process, include everyone from developers to end users.
Integrate documentation into the standard workflow of developers, and seek to reduce silos that solicit documentation from only a subset of the software’s contributors. Developers and engineers are the people with the best access to in-demand information, and getting them to document it will help foster a culture of documentation.
As well, documentation readers (i.e. users) should have clear avenues towards involvement in documentation. A good first step is to give readers the ability to offer feedback in the form of comments or suggestions. Allowing readers to edit documentation directly (e.g. in a wiki) can also be effective but must be weighed against the need and capacity for editorial oversight.
Encourage everyone to become a documentarian!
Accept (some) Repetition In Documentation.
If you want to write good code, Don’t Repeat Yourself. But if you adhere strictly to this DRY principle when writing documentation, you won’t get very far. Some amount of business logic described by your code will need to be described again in your documentation.
In an ideal world, an automated system would generate documentation from the software’s source code, and the system would be smart enough to generate good documentation without any additional input. Unfortunately we do not (yet) live in that world, and today the best documentation is hand-written, which means that just by writing any documentation, you are repeating yourself. Sure, documentation generators exist and are useful, but it’s important to acknowledge that they still require input from humans to function.
The pursuit of minimizing repetition remains valiant! ARID does not mean WET, hence the word choice. It means: try to keep things as DRY as possible but also recognize that you’ll inevitably need some amount of “moisture” to produce documentation.
Cultivating an awareness of this inconvenient truth will hopefully be a helpful step toward reminding developers that a need often exists to update documentation along with code.
Structure content to help readers identify and skip over concepts which they already understand or see are not relevant to their immediate questions.
Burying concepts in prose and verbiage demands more time from readers seeking answers to specific questions. Save your readers’ time by writing like a newspaper instead of a novel.
Include (some) examples and tutorials in content.
Many readers look first towards examples for quick answers, so including them will help save these people time. Try to write examples for the most common use cases, but not for everything. Too many examples can make the documentation less skimmable. Also, consider separating examples and tutorials from more dense reference information to further help readers skim.
Use consistent language and formatting in content.
Consider incorrect documentation to be worse than missing documentation.
When software changes faster than its documentation, the users suffer. Keep it up to date.
Make every effort to write content that is version-agnostic and thus in less need of maintenance. For example, generalize version numbers of software when they occur in tutorials (such as extracting a source code tarball with the version number in the file name).
Be aware as well that some users will remain on older versions of your software, and thus require older versions of your documentation. Proper documentation platforms will accommodate such needs gracefully.
Store sources as close as possible to the code which they document.
Give developers systems which allow them to easily make documentation changes along with their code changes. One way is to store documentation content in comment blocks within application source code. Another is to store it in separate text files but within the same repository as the application’s source code. Either way, the goal is merge (as much as possible) the workflows for development and documentation.
Eliminate content overlap between separate sources.
Storing content in different sources is okay, as long as the scope of each source is clearly defined and disjoint with other sources. The goal here is to prevent any parallel maintenance (or worse — lack of maintenance) of the same information across multiple sources.
Funnel users intuitively towards publications through all likely pathways.
Try to identify everywhere the user might go looking for documentation, and in all of those places, insert helpful pointers for them to find it. Documentation need not exist in all of these places, just pointers to it.
If a user manual is published in the woods, and no one is around to read it, does it exist? Discoverability says “no”.
Provide addresses to readers which link directly to content at a granular level.
The ability to reference specific sections deep within a body of documentation facilitates productive communication about the documentation, even with one’s self. These addresses can take the form of URLs, page numbers, or other forms depending on the publication medium. Readers may wish to bookmark certain sections, share them with other users, or provide feedback to the authors. The more granular this ability, and the easier it is to access, the better.
Content should be ordered to cover prerequisite concepts first.
Can a reader follow your entire body of documentation, linearly, from start to finish without getting confused? If so, the documentation is perfectly “cumulative”, which is great, but not always possible. It’s something to strive for, especially in tutorials and examples. If you have separated your tutorials and examples from the reference documentation, the put the tutorials and examples first. Then, content within the reference information section may be ordered alphabetically or topically without regard to prerequisite needs.
The goal of cumulative ordering is not to encourage readers to consume your documentation linearly — rather it is to help them narrow their search for information when filling in gaps in their knowledge. If a reader arrives with some knowledge of the software and begins reading the documentation at the 25% mark, they are likely to “rewind” when confused.
Within each publication, cover concepts in-full, or not at all.
Picture some documentation of software like a map of a neighborhood. If the map displays roads, readers will expect it to display all roads (which exist and are of the same type being displayed). Perhaps the map does not display railroads, for example. Thus, a reader approaching the map to look for railroads will find zero and then seek a different map — but the map is still “complete”, even with this shortcoming. “Complete” does not mean that the map must describe all characteristics of the land. It means simply that, for the characteristics it chooses to describe, it should describe all of them. A map that displays fifty out of one hundred fire hydrants in a neighborhood is worse than a map which displays none.
As a good example,
iconv is a command line tool for working with
character encodings. Its man page covers all
of its available options but none of the possible character encodings
accepted as values to these options. Instead, the man page instructs the
user to run
iconv -l to produce a list of character encodings. In
this example, the man page and the list are separate publications, both
of which are complete, which is good!
Publishing partially completed documentation must be done cautiously. To avoid misleading readers, make every effort to clearly state, up front, that a particular concept is only covered partially.
Visual style should be intentional and aesthetically pleasing.
Aesthetics don’t matter to everyone — but (consciously or not) some
readers will struggle to find comfort in documentation that lacks
attention to visual style. Even in text-only documentation such as
--help output, visual style is still present in the form of spacing
and capitalization. If visual style is not important to you personally,
then consider soliciting stylistic improvements from others for whom it
Ensure that together, all the publications in the body of documentation can answer all questions the user is likely to have.
We can never create enough documentation to satisfy all questions, however obscure, that might arise from users — but satisfying the likely questions is certainly attainable and thus should be the goal of a body of documentation. “Likely” is admittedly a blurry term, but it’s also relative, which means that a body of documentation which answers very unlikely questions while failing to answer likely ones is somewhat out of balance.
Answering some questions may require the user to read multiple publications, which is okay.