Why we're providing a better way for LLMs to process documentation.| mintlify.com
I think all technical writers, at some point or another, feel the urge to base their work on something more systematic than “it’s just the way folks documented stuff since forever”. Toolkits and frameworks provide content types, which is immensely valuable when you know what you want to write, but starting from there is like buying a hammer without knowing that half of the work you’ll do is turning screws. As I find the lack of deeper conversation around this topic rather unsettling, ...| passo.uno
For the first time since I started this blog, I’m writing some predictions on software technical writing for next year. Not because I think they’ll be accurate—they never are—but because the exercise reveals what we’re concerned about and what we hope to tackle. Predictions are to-do lists in disguise: they highlight challenges we’re determined to overcome. Plus, they’re fun to write. So here are my predictions for 2025, knowing I’ll enjoy being proven wrong.| passo.uno
Everybody loves to hate Frequently Asked Questions, or FAQs. More often than not, technical writers pale and stagger at the sight of hefty, unsorted FAQs, as if they were beholding a writhing mass of primal chaos. Others value their pragmatic qualities: FAQs, they say, lower the bar to contribution and are good fuel for LLMs and search engines. My opinion is that FAQs pose a problem only when there’s no strategy around their usage.| passo.uno
Last week I had the pleasure of conversing with Niklas Begley from Doctave. It was a follow-up to The Pros and Cons of Markdown, focused on why Markdown and other lightweight markup languages could benefit from some structure, in the DITA sense, but without going the XML way. Hint: There could be a bit of JSON schemas involved.| passo.uno