divx4

[kwall@kurtwerks.com]

Feigning erudition, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
% I think it takes both - the non programmer and the user type to write good docs.

This is what technical writers are for.

% Roger Oberholtzer <roger at opq.se> wrote:
% 
% > kwall at kurtwerks.com wrote:
% > 
% > > Feigning erudition, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
% > > % Hmm, I'll look at Mplayer then.  I understand almost all of the stuff we
% > > use is done by people like us in our spare time but it seems the docs or
% > > at least a decent overview of what a package does and what you need is
% > > lacking on most things out there - even some of the "professional" ones!% 
% > > % Docs are NOT optional! <G>.
% > > 
% > > Agreed. But, programmers should not be the ones to write the docs.
% > 
% > Very true. OTOH, our company decided to write docs for a bunch of software,
% 
% > As a programmer, I would perfer that someone else document the stuff. But I
% > hate it when features go missing in the docs. Lots of work, and no one knows
% > it is even there...

Quite so. At work, the arrangment is that after we write the documents,
part of the release process is for the programmers who wrote the software
to review the documentation and catch our mistakes, oversights, errors,
and omissions. Granted, it helps that 2/3 of our technical writing staff has
programming credientials and long Linux backgrounds because it gives us 
credibility with the developers that a "mere" technical writer might not
otherwise have.

Kurt
-- 
"OK, now let's look at four dimensions on the blackboard."
		-- Dr. Joy