2005-02-24 Ubuntu-doc report

[Sean Wheller]

On Friday 25 February 2005 06:49, Matthew Thomas wrote:
> On 24 Feb, 2005, at 11:14 PM, Jeff Schering wrote:
> > ...
> > I would say the number of people who notice when the documentation
> > sucks is much closer to 1,000,000 than it is to 100,000. Linux
> > documentation has traditionally been poor or non-existant. Most of it
> > is written from one programmer to another programmer. However,
> > programmers and users think much differently from one another.
>
> Not only that, but people writing Free Software documentation often
> have the wrong idea of when it will be read. As the existence of the
> abbreviation "RTFM" suggests, most people will only read a manual if
> (1) something goes wrong and (2) there is no human available to ask for
> help, because humans are much more context-sensitive (and therefore
> much more helpful) than manuals are.
>
> Much software documentation is of the form "this is what menu item x
> does, and this is what menu item y does, and this is what menu item z
> does ...", which is nearly useless for someone wanting actual help. As
> a result, people have become used to the idea that manuals and
> (especially) online help are next to useless, which is a shame.

Interesting observations. Not sure I agree with everything said, but hey, each 
to their own.

I think it is important to look at documentation in context of its role in the 
technology adoption life-cycle. This cycle takes a technology through many 
phases, at each phase the psychographic profile of the user group that will 
be using the technology changes. With each phase the user group becomes 
increasingly adverse to change and less confident in their ability to 
implement, use and maintain technology.

Until recently, Linux has been the reserve of the "uber-geek." This group is 
part of the "innovator" psychographic profile. They are confident in their 
abilities and get involved with technology despite not knowing what to do 
with it. For them documentation is a waste of time. Since Linux has remained 
with this group for an extended period of time, the perception that online 
help is "next to useless" has been the norm.

Fortunately, Linux has managed to shift to the next psychographic group in the 
cycle, the "early-adopters." This group sees advantage in technology and 
seeks to leverage on it. They are comfortable with their ability, but need to 
realize that the later psychographic profiles are not. Developers in this 
stage, should know that in order to gain acceptance from the later 
psychographic groups the technology must be simple and easy to use.

Unfortunately, most do not and so many technologies never reach the mass 
market comprised of early-majority, late-majority and laggard user groups. At 
this point it can be said that the technology failed in its "go-to-market" 
strategy. There may be any number of factors. Very often, it is a lack of 
things like usability, documentation and support which these user groups want 
before they will use a technology.

Therefore, documentation, localization, translation are all part of the 
"go-to-market" strategy for Linux. Historically, there has not been a need 
for "go-to-market" strategy since there was never an intention to take a 
product to market. This situation changed over time as FOSS gathered momentum 
and became increasingly technologically advanced. The advent of the User 
Desktop on Linux marks a clear change from being a "uber-geek" hobby to an OS 
for everyone. At this point we are looking at how to make Linux a mainstream 
product. Many companies are looking for was to take it to the market and make 
a fortune enroute. To do that they must build a complete product. The 
software, documentation, support, the whole "bang-shoot." If they don't, 
early and late majority users will never adopt and Linux will never become 
mainstream.

So you can expect Linux to become easier and simpler over time. Aspects such 
as usability and documentation are key at present, but will reduce in 
importance as the software becomes intuitive to the point where it does not 
need documentation. Naturally, complex systems and applications will always 
need a certain degree of "knowledge transfer."


-- 
Sean Wheller
Technical Author
sean at inwords.co.za
http://www.inwords.co.za
Registered Linux User #375355
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20050227/5eb3905f/attachment.pgp>