TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Barry Campbell wrote:
If something is a FAQ, that means one or more of the following is true:
-- It isn't covered or explained adequately in the documentation, or
-- People aren't finding it in the documentation, or
-- People aren't reading the documentation, period.
My point of view is that a FAQ should be a living document, and is a
great place to capture quick answers to problems that you're going to
fix/information you're going to make easier to find in the next
revision of the documentation. The answer(s) to a *really* frequently
asked question probably belongs in your Quick Start guide and your
online help (at a minimum.)
Increasingly companies are directing you to web sites for their
documentation or the answers to your questions. Many times, you don't have
traditional documentation. All you have access to is what is online or id in
help. So when end users are directed to FAQs, how many find the answers? How
many search like I did and give up?
To me it could be more than a question about "documentation" but
effectiveness of an accepted technique. How many technical writers and
managers assume that FAQ are effective because it's an accepted
communication technique? So do we know or do we have any stats relating to
FAQ and thier effectiveness?
Frankly, speaking from my current very frustated viewpoint, I doubt I'll
every use another FAQ site.