Skip to content

Commit c871a61

Browse files
authored
Merge pull request #165 from justwriteclick/build
Survey results post
2 parents f636ffa + 082a8f6 commit c871a61

6 files changed

Lines changed: 131 additions & 22 deletions

File tree

Gemfile.lock

Lines changed: 28 additions & 22 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -4,18 +4,21 @@ GEM
44
addressable (2.7.0)
55
public_suffix (>= 2.0.2, < 5.0)
66
colorator (1.1.0)
7-
concurrent-ruby (1.1.6)
8-
em-websocket (0.5.1)
7+
concurrent-ruby (1.1.7)
8+
em-websocket (0.5.2)
99
eventmachine (>= 0.12.9)
1010
http_parser.rb (~> 0.6.0)
1111
ethon (0.12.0)
1212
ffi (>= 1.3.0)
1313
eventmachine (1.2.7)
14-
faraday (1.0.1)
14+
faraday (1.3.0)
15+
faraday-net_http (~> 1.0)
1516
multipart-post (>= 1.2, < 3)
16-
ffi (1.13.1)
17+
ruby2_keywords
18+
faraday-net_http (1.0.0)
19+
ffi (1.14.2)
1720
forwardable-extended (2.6.0)
18-
html-proofer (3.15.3)
21+
html-proofer (3.18.5)
1922
addressable (~> 2.3)
2023
mercenary (~> 0.3)
2124
nokogumbo (~> 2.0)
@@ -24,32 +27,32 @@ GEM
2427
typhoeus (~> 1.3)
2528
yell (~> 2.0)
2629
http_parser.rb (0.6.0)
27-
i18n (1.8.3)
30+
i18n (1.8.7)
2831
concurrent-ruby (~> 1.0)
29-
jekyll (4.1.0)
32+
jekyll (4.2.0)
3033
addressable (~> 2.4)
3134
colorator (~> 1.0)
3235
em-websocket (~> 0.5)
3336
i18n (~> 1.0)
3437
jekyll-sass-converter (~> 2.0)
3538
jekyll-watch (~> 2.0)
36-
kramdown (~> 2.1)
39+
kramdown (~> 2.3)
3740
kramdown-parser-gfm (~> 1.0)
3841
liquid (~> 4.0)
3942
mercenary (~> 0.4.0)
4043
pathutil (~> 0.9)
4144
rouge (~> 3.0)
4245
safe_yaml (~> 1.0)
43-
terminal-table (~> 1.8)
44-
jekyll-feed (0.13.0)
46+
terminal-table (~> 2.0)
47+
jekyll-feed (0.15.1)
4548
jekyll (>= 3.7, < 5.0)
4649
jekyll-gist (1.5.0)
4750
octokit (~> 4.2)
4851
jekyll-paginate (1.1.0)
4952
jekyll-sass-converter (2.1.0)
5053
sassc (> 2.0.1, < 3.0)
51-
jekyll-seo-tag (2.6.1)
52-
jekyll (>= 3.3, < 5.0)
54+
jekyll-seo-tag (2.7.1)
55+
jekyll (>= 3.8, < 5.0)
5356
jekyll-sitemap (1.4.0)
5457
jekyll (>= 3.7, < 5.0)
5558
jekyll-theme-so-simple (3.2.0)
@@ -66,36 +69,39 @@ GEM
6669
kramdown-parser-gfm (1.1.0)
6770
kramdown (~> 2.0)
6871
liquid (4.0.3)
69-
listen (3.2.1)
72+
listen (3.4.0)
7073
rb-fsevent (~> 0.10, >= 0.10.3)
7174
rb-inotify (~> 0.9, >= 0.9.10)
7275
mercenary (0.4.0)
73-
mini_portile2 (2.4.0)
76+
mini_portile2 (2.5.0)
7477
multipart-post (2.1.1)
75-
nokogiri (1.10.9)
76-
mini_portile2 (~> 2.4.0)
77-
nokogumbo (2.0.2)
78+
nokogiri (1.11.1)
79+
mini_portile2 (~> 2.5.0)
80+
racc (~> 1.4)
81+
nokogumbo (2.0.4)
7882
nokogiri (~> 1.8, >= 1.8.4)
79-
octokit (4.18.0)
83+
octokit (4.20.0)
8084
faraday (>= 0.9)
8185
sawyer (~> 0.8.0, >= 0.5.3)
82-
parallel (1.19.1)
86+
parallel (1.20.1)
8387
pathutil (0.16.2)
8488
forwardable-extended (~> 2.6)
85-
public_suffix (4.0.5)
89+
public_suffix (4.0.6)
90+
racc (1.5.2)
8691
rainbow (3.0.0)
8792
rb-fsevent (0.10.4)
8893
rb-inotify (0.10.1)
8994
ffi (~> 1.0)
9095
rexml (3.2.4)
91-
rouge (3.20.0)
96+
rouge (3.26.0)
97+
ruby2_keywords (0.0.2)
9298
safe_yaml (1.0.5)
9399
sassc (2.4.0)
94100
ffi (~> 1.9)
95101
sawyer (0.8.2)
96102
addressable (>= 2.3.5)
97103
faraday (> 0.8, < 2.0)
98-
terminal-table (1.8.0)
104+
terminal-table (2.0.0)
99105
unicode-display_width (~> 1.1, >= 1.1.1)
100106
typhoeus (1.4.0)
101107
ethon (>= 0.9.0)

_data/authors.yml

Lines changed: 7 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1,5 +1,12 @@
11
# Authors
22

3+
anne_gentle:
4+
name: Anne Gentle
5+
picture: http://docslikecode.com/images/anne_gentle.jpg
6+
github: //github.com/annegentle
7+
twitter: annegentle
8+
bio: "Developer Experience Manager"
9+
310
rachel_whitton:
411
name: Rachel Whitton
512
picture: https://pantheon.io/sites/default/files/styles/540x540_top/public/RachelNew.jpg
Lines changed: 96 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
1+
---
2+
layout: post
3+
title: Survey results for learning and teaching docs-like-code techniques
4+
excerpt: "Review the results of a mid-2020 survey about learning and teaching team mates and yourself how to work with docs like code, Git, and GitHub for technical documentation."
5+
last_modified_at: Sat Jan 9 13:39:05 CST 2021
6+
categories: articles
7+
author: anne_gentle
8+
tags: [github, git, learning, teaching, documentation, developer, docs-like-code, onboarding]
9+
image:
10+
path: /images/othree-github-stickers.jpg
11+
caption: "[Flickr othree](https://flic.kr/p/bGFTuT)"
12+
comments: false
13+
share: true
14+
---
15+
16+
I asked three questions in a survey emailed to my mailing list and got more than 30 responses. Thanks to everyone who took the time to share their stories and respond. Here are the three questions:
17+
18+
* Question 1: When you talk to your leaders about docs-as-code, can they describe the benefits as well as the difficulties?
19+
20+
* Question 2: How do you onboard people who are new to your docs tools and processes?
21+
22+
* Question 3: What tips or discussions (from any source) was most helpful to you when learning docs-as-code techniques?
23+
24+
Docs-as-code processes are still new in the field and it seems many of the responses are split, with no overwhelming patterns in any single area. Let's look into the data and charts for the first two questions.
25+
26+
## Question 1: When you talk to your leaders about docs-as-code, can they describe the benefits as well as the difficulties?
27+
28+
![](/images/survey-charts/leadership-docs-tools.png)
29+
30+
**Legend**
31+
32+
**26.8**% Yes, my leader started our processes and makes it possible for us to use our current tools and processes.
33+
34+
**19.5**% Yes, my leader can provide their leadership complete justification for our choices.
35+
36+
**19.5**% No, I work in an environment where my tool selection does not need justification from a management chain.
37+
38+
**19.5**% No, my leadership chain doesn't really know what I do or why I use certain tools.
39+
40+
**14.6**% It depends on which leader I'm talking to.
41+
42+
In a way, nearly all the responses could be viewed as "leadership either supports the selection does not get in the way of tool selection." For about two-thirds of the responses, either leadership can justify, started the processes, or isn't a deciding factor.
43+
44+
Looking at the number of lone writer responses in the next question, this indicator makes sense as five of thirty-five respondents noted that they were the only writer in the organization, which would make up 14% of all responses. Let's take a look.
45+
46+
## Question 2: How do you onboard people who are new to your docs tools and processes?
47+
48+
![](/images/survey-charts/how-onboard-docs.png)
49+
50+
**Legend**
51+
52+
**14.6**% Internal write-up only
53+
54+
**20.2**% Meeting only
55+
56+
**1.1**% Pre-built environment only
57+
58+
**5.6**% Lone writer
59+
60+
**23.6**% Internal write up and meeting
61+
62+
**34.8**% Internal write-up, meeting, and pre-built environment
63+
64+
My favorite answer to this question was one I hadn't considered, where the person is a lone writer, but works with the devs to get the docs working in the source code repo. It's along the lines of "It's complicated."
65+
66+
> "Nothing, I'm the only person working on docs. The developers required documentation to work with our first attempt because we tried to use tool stacks that crossed different departments between authoring and publishing. Extensive process documentation was required in order for devs to figure out how the docs were to fit together despite the fact that we used markdown and the docs were in the source code repo. We switched tracks when the pain of the "throw it over the wall approach got too big. At which point we started a whole new docs site on a JAM stack platform. But still... Baby-steps."
67+
68+
## Question 3: What tips or discussions (from any source) was most helpful to you when learning docs-as-code techniques?
69+
70+
For question three, I wanted to share any nuggets found in the answers here on the Docs Like Code site, since the goal for this site is to learn these techniques together and share our stories. Here are some highlights.
71+
72+
> "Write the Docs community. Hustling the hard streets of Google search results. Your book!"
73+
74+
> "Trail and Error - lots of searching. Reliance on internal Dev Ops"
75+
76+
> "Familiarity with Git was key - I had already used Git on a smaller scale for personal projects and that helped me become comfortable when I had to collaborate with other writers/devs. And even then I still had to constantly refer to Git-related resources online to make sure I wasn't messing anything up."
77+
78+
> "Your Docs as Code book was helpful, for certain. Recently, Frank Miller and Rik Page had two broad discussions about using GIT in lieu of a cCMS (see Git Happens [part 1](https://vimeo.com/431452486) and [part 2](https://vimeo.com/449217243)). The main fear I have is different technical aptitudes and willingness to learn of the writers with whom I work. Some will adapt to GIT easily, while others will struggle mightily."
79+
80+
> "It's still writing. If you don't have documentation as business goal with the processes to produce it - e.g. customer expectation to receive docs with a new release so docs as part of Definition of Done - then docs in code won't help.
81+
Also, engineers won't write unless they're told to. You need a push down from leadership. Don't try to grassroots it."
82+
83+
> "show people that the browser<>Git edit flow is ok, but IDE<>Git<>Browser is far better... show people how much support a good IDE plugin can give (asciidoctor plugin for IntelliJ has so many great features)"
84+
85+
> "We use GitHub already so the argument to switch was easy. When I told the dev teams they didn’t need to use different tools, they were sold. I did, however, make a big mistake early on in the transition. I failed to point out that any non-code related docs (team/training content) should be separate from the code-related docs (readme.md) because not everyone had GitHub work accounts. As a result, non-dev employees couldn’t access anything. That’s not a result of the technique but bad planning on my part. Other than that, it’s been a lean and efficient methodology for how we document our dev projects."
86+
87+
> "Putting the documentation in source code where the developers can get to it. Attempting to docs-as-code with 2 stacks requiring a conversion from markdown to HTML fragments ingested by a little known CMS (MODX) as the published content was a poorly thought out approach. I tried to warn the guys about this - especially since we didn't have a way to duplicate the nested CMS structure required on the publishing end... But we lived with it for a year before it became painfully obvious that another solution was required."
88+
89+
90+
> "I studied your shared extent extensively when I was starting out. Other courses include Peter Gruenbaum's set on Udemy, Tom Johnson's blog, and chats in the Write the Docs Slack channel."
91+
92+
> "Sarah Parson’s Write the Docs presentation on static site generators and Tom Johnson’s explanation of his Documentation Jekyll theme."
93+
94+
This is not a section simply to point to the [Docs Like Code book](https://docslikecode.com/book/) as a resource, rather, it's to show that having additional resources including people you can ask questions is super valuable when learning how to treat docs like code. I'm grateful to the Write the Docs community and people who are also writing their experiences here and on other sites so we can all learn together. Thanks to everyone who shared their experiences and hard-earned wisdom!
95+
96+
{% include sign-up.html %}

images/othree-github-stickers.jpg

5.04 MB
Loading
237 KB
Loading
304 KB
Loading

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)