Breaking the grip of user manuals

The problem is NOT the manuals.It's their hold on us!Because we depend on manuals to work, we feel the dependent's resentment when they are awkward, complicated, out-of-date, incomprehensible...If we weren't compelled to use them, we would certainly complain less.If they were merely an aid, a resource, something we could choose either to read or ignore, then we would be less put out by their contradictions and obscurities.Most companies, however, believe that manuals are inescapable, that they are a problem that must be dealt with.Even those companies who chronically underdocument their systems feel guilty about it.And thus the endless parade of articles and books (including mine) on how to make documentation more accessible and readable.Viewed somewhat myopically, the problem seems to be: How to Build a Better Book.But there is a more interesting view of the issue.Ever since the advent of personal computing, there have been many critics who believe that manuals are NOT inescapable.More specifically, there is the irresistible claim that well-made systems shouldn't need user manuals at all!Even if we do not accept this boast entirely, there is still no escape from the truth that every manual writer has learned:The more usable a system, the easier it is to document.The better the interface and internal support, the less we need to put into the manuals.A fortunate irony here is that, after years of writing user documentation, technical writers develop a new expertise: nat makes systems hard to use.After a while, every time we write a difficult page, we cannot help noticing what made that page difficult, that is, how the system might have been changed to eliminate the need for the more tortuous explanations.