I think everyone on the team should get involved in this kind of feedback because raw first impressions on new content (which you can only experience once, and will be somewhat similar to impatient new users) is super valuable.
I remember as a dev flagging some tech marketing copy aimed at non-devs as confusing and being told by a manager not to give any more feedback like that because I wasn't in marketing... If your own team that's familiar with your product is a little confused, you can probably x10 that confusion for outside users, and multiply that again if a dev is confused by tech content aimed at non-devs.
I find it really common as well that you get non-tech people writing about tech topics for marketing and landing pages, and because they only have a surface level understanding of the the tech the text becomes really vague with little meaning.
And you'll get lots devs and other people on the team agreeing in secret the e.g. the product homepage content isn't great but are scared to say anything because they feel they have to stay inside their bubble and there isn't a culture of sharing feedback like that.
But today's AI might do better than the average tech writer. AI might be able to generate reasonably usable, if mediocre, technical documentation based on a halfheartedly updated wiki and the README files and comments scattered in the developers' code base. A lot of projects don't just have poor technical documentation, they have no technical documentation.
AI would do a great job of fixing their writing, but they don't want to use it, because it's not an official part of "the process".
>and comments scattered in the developers' code base
I'm not so sure about this one. Most devs I've worked with don't use comments.
True, but it raises another question, what were your Product Managers doing in the first place if tech writer is finding out about usability problems
But even if a PM cares about UX, they are often not in a good position to spot problems with designs and flows they are closely involved in and intimately familiar with.
Having someone else with a special perspective can be very useful, even if their job provides other beneficial functions, too. Using this "resource" is the job of the PM.
> But even if a PM cares about UX,
How can a PM do their job if they don't *care* about UX?
I mean... I know exactly happens because I've seen it more than once: the product slowly goes to shit. You get a bunch of PMs at various levels of seniority all pursuing separate goals, not collaborating, not actually working together to compose a coherent product; their production teams are actively encouraged to be siloed; features collide and overlap, or worse conflict; every component redefines what a button looks like; bundles bloat; you have three different rendering tools (ok, I've not seen that in practice but it seems to be encouraged by many "best practices") etc etc
I'm just responding to this:
> what were your Product Managers doing in the first place if tech writer is finding out about usability problems
They might very well be doing their job of caring about UX, by using the available expertise to find problems.
It's a bit like saying (forgive the imperfect analogy): what are the developers doing talking about corner cases in the business logic, isn't the PM doing their job?
Yes, they are. They are using the combined expertise in the team.
Let's allow the PMs to rely on the knowledge and insights of other people, shall we? Their job already isn't easy, even (or especially) if they care.
I think I agree, at least in the current state of AI, but can't quite put my finger on what exactly it's missing. I did have some limited success with getting Claude Code to go through tutorials (actually implementing each step as they go), and then having it iterate on the tutorial, but it's definitely not at the level of a human tech writer.
Would you be willing to take a stab at the competencies that a future AI agent would require to be excellent at this (or possibly never achieve)? I mean, TFA talks about "empathy" and emotions and feeling the pain, but I can't help feel that this wording is a bit too magical to be useful.
For tech documentation, I suppose that AI agents would mainly benefit from Skills files managed as part of the tool's repo, and I absolutely do imagine future AI agents being set up (e.g. as part of their AGENTS.md) to propose PRs to these Skills as they use the tools. And I'm wondering whether AI agents might end up with different usability concerns and pain-points from those that we have.
We have to ask AI questions for it to do things. We have to probe it. A human knows things and will probe others, unprompted. It's why we are actually intelligent and the LLM is a word guesser.
Also true that most tech writers are bad. And companies aren't going to spend >$200k/year on a tech writer until they hit tens of millions in revenue. So AI fills the gap.
As a horror story, our docs team didn't understand that having correct installation links should be one of their top priorities. Obviously if a potential customer can't install product, they'd assume it's bs and try to find an alternative. It's so much more important than e.g. grammar in a middle of some guide.