Such a great idea—to build a reference. However, it is important to set up the context of some of those experiences might be less relevant today because of the changing information consumption behaviour by the users, or because how the product experience has been changing over the years.
The next generation should be able to see the bridges also—how the veterans' experiences might make sense in the modern product content strategy goals.
For example we have seen:
—the change in information consumers' information consumption patterns—from page-centric to search-centric (not to forget prompt-centric)
—they see technical content as part of product content because of the rise on onboarding design tools such as Intercom and DAPs brought a shift in the usability and user experience expectations (research based of course)
—the change in product experience has influenced how consumers find, use, and make sense of the technical content (for a non-linear, complicated, and sometimes unpredictable customer journey)—sometimes they don't have a journey per se, there are only fragmented customer success moments without a clear goal.
But I also knew that documentation has been stuck in a loop for decades, and I expect that it will remain in that loop for decades more. The page is an inefficient unit to create and manage. The lure of structure is ever-present. When I started, it was SGML. In the middle of my career, it was XML. By the end of it, it was Markdown. Each attempt dawned with the same promise. Each failed to produce the level of structure necessary for real efficiency. Each collapsed back into a page paradigm with angle brackets in the back end.
Perhaps it is that most people who are attracted to this profession don't think about structure in this way. Perhaps it is that we overestimate the amount of consistent repeatable structure there actually is in the content set.
But for this reason, I don't expect that the retirement of my generation of tech comm folk will lead to any great crisis. I think a new generation will come along and invent it all again, and, like us, reach the limit of what either the people or the technology can do. Tech comm has lived in a permanent state of crisis for decades, and it is the same crisis over and over, with the same not-quite-cures over and over again. The profession was not fundamentally different the day I left from the day I arrived.
Which is not to say that the work we did was for nothing. Perhaps we held back the tide of chaos for a generation, and if so, that is no small thing. But if so, the next generation will do that too, with brand new versions of the same old tools and the same old ideas. And good luck to them!
Oh the irony. A load of documentation experts that have failed to document what they know!
Such a great idea—to build a reference. However, it is important to set up the context of some of those experiences might be less relevant today because of the changing information consumption behaviour by the users, or because how the product experience has been changing over the years.
The next generation should be able to see the bridges also—how the veterans' experiences might make sense in the modern product content strategy goals.
For example we have seen:
—the change in information consumers' information consumption patterns—from page-centric to search-centric (not to forget prompt-centric)
—they see technical content as part of product content because of the rise on onboarding design tools such as Intercom and DAPs brought a shift in the usability and user experience expectations (research based of course)
—the change in product experience has influenced how consumers find, use, and make sense of the technical content (for a non-linear, complicated, and sometimes unpredictable customer journey)—sometimes they don't have a journey per se, there are only fragmented customer success moments without a clear goal.
It’s part of why my Women in Technical Communication project is so important! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSefkr4Aq0a0akmKxuwn4jpM6ZtDrGeZfj00jcmgVOhgW1MGiQ/viewform?usp=sharing
Well, I did write it down before I retired.
But I also knew that documentation has been stuck in a loop for decades, and I expect that it will remain in that loop for decades more. The page is an inefficient unit to create and manage. The lure of structure is ever-present. When I started, it was SGML. In the middle of my career, it was XML. By the end of it, it was Markdown. Each attempt dawned with the same promise. Each failed to produce the level of structure necessary for real efficiency. Each collapsed back into a page paradigm with angle brackets in the back end.
Perhaps it is that most people who are attracted to this profession don't think about structure in this way. Perhaps it is that we overestimate the amount of consistent repeatable structure there actually is in the content set.
But for this reason, I don't expect that the retirement of my generation of tech comm folk will lead to any great crisis. I think a new generation will come along and invent it all again, and, like us, reach the limit of what either the people or the technology can do. Tech comm has lived in a permanent state of crisis for decades, and it is the same crisis over and over, with the same not-quite-cures over and over again. The profession was not fundamentally different the day I left from the day I arrived.
Which is not to say that the work we did was for nothing. Perhaps we held back the tide of chaos for a generation, and if so, that is no small thing. But if so, the next generation will do that too, with brand new versions of the same old tools and the same old ideas. And good luck to them!
Question: why did you use the image, "From the real experts"? How do you define a "real" expert?