[Gllug] Controversial Joel Spolsky article

[Bernard Peek]

In message <20031216170651.5ab7dc25.huw-l at moving-picture.com>, Huw Lynes 
<huw-l at moving-picture.com> writes
>On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:54:11 +0000
>Bernard Peek <bap at shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
>> I particularly liked Joel's comments about manuals. Good software
>> doesn't need a manual, or on-line help. As a technical author I like to
>> see a well-written and comprehensive manual. As a developer I like to
>> see a good healthy layer of dust on top of the user manuals.
>>
>Simple software that relies on metaphors that everyone understands doesn't
>require a manual. Think mail clients. Any software that does anything out of
>the ordinary will require a very good manual. Think CAD packages.

In part it depends on what you think is out of the ordinary. I can 
probably learn a new mail client in minutes, but I've been working with 
e-mail for 20 years. Someone who has been working with CAD for 20 years 
should ideally be able to use a new program without looking at a manual. 
There's a difference between documenting the software and documenting 
the process the software automates.

>
>But even then is aunt marge really going to be able to sort out the server
>settings in her copy of outlook without some documentation?

Yes, but there's a difference between "some documentation" and a manual. 
My rule of thumb is that it's reasonable to expect an average software 
user to read two pages of documentation. Aunt Marge knows that she 
doesn't know much about software and will read more than that. Even 
Marge has her limits though, and if the manual is more than 8 pages she 
will probably declare that it's too complicated and she must go and have 
a lie down.



-- 
Bernard Peek
London, UK. DBA, Manager, Trainer & Author. Will work for money.

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug