4 ms·

Nope. Product documentation is published for an external audience. Feature requirements are never published for external audiences.

handfuloflight 2y ago
There seems to be a misunderstanding about industry terminology here. "Product documentation" is a broad umbrella term encompassing various types of documentation across the entire product lifecycle [1]. This includes both internal-facing documentation (like feature requirements) and external-facing documentation. Feature requirements are indeed a subset of product documentation. Industry resources clearly categorize "product features documentation" as part of the broader product documentation ecosystem [2]. Technical documentation frameworks consistently include requirements documents as core components of product documentation [3]. Product Requirements Documents (PRDs) are recognized as integral parts of the documentation ecosystem [4], serving as blueprints for implementation. The article uses "product documentation" correctly in this comprehensive sense, and the MECE framework example demonstrates precisely how feature requirements fit within established documentation practices. The original author's usage aligns with standard industry terminology and understanding. [1] https://indoc.pro/documentation-types/product-features-documentation/ https://indoc.pro/documentation-types/product-features-docum... [2] https://indoc.pro/documentation-types/product-features-documentation/ https://indoc.pro/documentation-types/product-features-docum... [3] https://www.altexsoft.com/blog/technical-documentation-in-software-development-types-best-practices-and-tools/ https://www.altexsoft.com/blog/technical-documentation-in-so... [4] https://www.productplan.com/glossary/product-requirements-document/ https://www.productplan.com/glossary/product-requirements-do...
- docmechanic 2y ago
  Nope. Feature requirements are part of the standard product development process, not a part of product documentation. In thirty years of writing product documentation, I’ve never once heard this usage. You are confused by obscure sources that are not referred to in the technical writing community.
  - handfuloflight 2y ago
    "Nope" to facts? Bold move. Technical Writer HQ explicitly states: "Product documentation is a broad term and is not just meant for consumers' use. Product documentation also covers the information for a product or service for internal organizational use" including "product design, logic, infrastructure... and specification sheets." [1] Far from some obscure source, Technical Writer HQ runs "one of the world's largest communities for technical writers with thousands of global members from 500+ companies around the world." Perhaps in your thirty years of experience, you've developed your own private definition of product documentation that doesn't align with industry standards. That's fine, but don't dismiss established terminology with a dismissive "Nope" when you've provided zero sources beyond your own personal opinion. Feature requirements are indeed a subset of product documentation according to authoritative technical writing standards. Next time, try citing something other than your confidence. [1] https://technicalwriterhq.com/documentation/product-documentation/ https://technicalwriterhq.com/documentation/product-document...
    - docmechanic 2y ago
      Nope to a dilettante without experience in this domain. You’re like a plaintiff on the Peoples Court trying to quote Black’s Law to a judge. I’ve been exposed to the domain-specific terminology for technical documentation for three decades. No one in the enterprise software industry refers to feature requirements as product documentation. Tuning you out now.
      - handfuloflight 2y ago
        Interesting how you claim domain expertise while dismissing industry-standard terminology documented by established authorities. I cited verifiable sources that explicitly include internal documents like feature requirements under product documentation. Your response? More appeals to personal authority without a single citation. When confronted with evidence contradicting your position, you resort to name-calling rather than engaging with the facts. If you've spent 30 years in a bubble where terminology differs from broader industry standards, that's a limitation of your experience, not everyone else's. Semantics. What a hill to die on.

handfuloflight 2y ago

There seems to be a misunderstanding about industry terminology here. "Product documentation" is a broad umbrella term encompassing various types of documentation across the entire product lifecycle [1]. This includes both internal-facing documentation (like feature requirements) and external-facing documentation. Feature requirements are indeed a subset of product documentation. Industry resources clearly categorize "product features documentation" as part of the broader product documentation ecosystem [2]. Technical documentation frameworks consistently include requirements documents as core components of product documentation [3]. Product Requirements Documents (PRDs) are recognized as integral parts of the documentation ecosystem [4], serving as blueprints for implementation. The article uses "product documentation" correctly in this comprehensive sense, and the MECE framework example demonstrates precisely how feature requirements fit within established documentation practices. The original author's usage aligns with standard industry terminology and understanding. [1] https://indoc.pro/documentation-types/product-features-documentation/ https://indoc.pro/documentation-types/product-features-docum... [2] https://indoc.pro/documentation-types/product-features-documentation/ https://indoc.pro/documentation-types/product-features-docum... [3] https://www.altexsoft.com/blog/technical-documentation-in-software-development-types-best-practices-and-tools/ https://www.altexsoft.com/blog/technical-documentation-in-so... [4] https://www.productplan.com/glossary/product-requirements-document/ https://www.productplan.com/glossary/product-requirements-do...

docmechanic 2y ago
Nope. Feature requirements are part of the standard product development process, not a part of product documentation. In thirty years of writing product documentation, I’ve never once heard this usage. You are confused by obscure sources that are not referred to in the technical writing community.
- handfuloflight 2y ago
  "Nope" to facts? Bold move. Technical Writer HQ explicitly states: "Product documentation is a broad term and is not just meant for consumers' use. Product documentation also covers the information for a product or service for internal organizational use" including "product design, logic, infrastructure... and specification sheets." [1] Far from some obscure source, Technical Writer HQ runs "one of the world's largest communities for technical writers with thousands of global members from 500+ companies around the world." Perhaps in your thirty years of experience, you've developed your own private definition of product documentation that doesn't align with industry standards. That's fine, but don't dismiss established terminology with a dismissive "Nope" when you've provided zero sources beyond your own personal opinion. Feature requirements are indeed a subset of product documentation according to authoritative technical writing standards. Next time, try citing something other than your confidence. [1] https://technicalwriterhq.com/documentation/product-documentation/ https://technicalwriterhq.com/documentation/product-document...
  - docmechanic 2y ago
    Nope to a dilettante without experience in this domain. You’re like a plaintiff on the Peoples Court trying to quote Black’s Law to a judge. I’ve been exposed to the domain-specific terminology for technical documentation for three decades. No one in the enterprise software industry refers to feature requirements as product documentation. Tuning you out now.
    - handfuloflight 2y ago
      Interesting how you claim domain expertise while dismissing industry-standard terminology documented by established authorities. I cited verifiable sources that explicitly include internal documents like feature requirements under product documentation. Your response? More appeals to personal authority without a single citation. When confronted with evidence contradicting your position, you resort to name-calling rather than engaging with the facts. If you've spent 30 years in a bubble where terminology differs from broader industry standards, that's a limitation of your experience, not everyone else's. Semantics. What a hill to die on.