Although the article 1) is a good reminder that perhaps more people than we think struggle to read documentation and 2) provides useful solutions, I do have som

Although the article 1) is a good reminder that perhaps more people than we think struggle to read documentation and 2) provides useful solutions, I do have some criticism. As time goes on more often I see people complain about documentation to be 'too technical'. This typically comes from people who are self-taught or went to a boot camp. The author, a self-taught developer who started writing code seven months[0] before writing the article on better readability and usability of technical documentation, prompts to 'avoid jargon'. Jargon makes documentation more readable and more usable. By definition it is a short description for something common in our field of work. Any non-jargon description would be more long-winded. The author lists 'avoid jargon' as a method to make documentation more accessible. I opine avoiding jargon has nothing to do with accessibility, at most with inclusiveness. And indeed, right after mentioning avoiding jargon the author brings up 'use inclusive language', including 'avoid using gendered language'. Whether or not inclusiveness in the way the author describes is important in technical documentation is a separate matter. Let us please not muddy the waters. You have all the rights to share your political opinions, but do not hide them among otherwise fairly objective suggestions to improve accessibility. [0] https://www.africakenyah.com/learning-to-code-part-1/ https://www.africakenyah.com/learning-to-code-part-1/".