# Developer Communications Decisions

Decision frameworks for documentation structure, tooling, and content strategy.

---

## 1. Documentation Platform Selection

**Context**: Choosing where and how to host documentation.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Docusaurus/VuePress** | Open source, custom needs, engineering-owned | Setup and maintenance, less out-of-box |
| **ReadMe/Mintlify** | SaaS, quick setup, API focus, interactive features | Cost, less customization, vendor lock-in |
| **GitBook** | Non-technical contributors, collaboration focus | Less developer-oriented, slower for large docs |
| **Custom solution** | Unique requirements, deep integration needs | High cost, maintenance burden |

**Decision criteria**: Team technical capability, budget, customization needs, content type.

**Red flags**: Custom solution for simple docs, GitBook for heavy API reference, ignoring developer experience to save budget.

---

## 2. Documentation Ownership

**Context**: Who is responsible for creating and maintaining documentation.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Engineering owns all** | Small team, technical product, engineers write well | Engineers resent doc work, quality varies |
| **Technical writers own all** | Complex product, dedicated docs team, high volume | Writers lack depth, need heavy engineering review |
| **Hybrid (engineers draft, writers polish)** | Balance of accuracy and clarity, medium+ team size | Coordination overhead, dual ownership complexity |
| **Product/feature owners** | Documentation as product requirement, clear ownership | Inconsistent quality, variable commitment |

**Decision criteria**: Team size, engineering culture, documentation complexity, resources.

**Red flags**: Nobody clearly owns docs, engineers with no writing support, writers without engineering access.

---

## 3. Documentation Structure

**Context**: How to organize documentation for findability.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **By feature/component** | Mature product, exploring users, reference-heavy | Doesn't match user goals, assumes product knowledge |
| **By user task/goal** | Task-oriented product, new users, tutorial-heavy | Harder to maintain as features grow |
| **By audience/persona** | Multiple distinct audiences, different needs | Duplication, more content to maintain |
| **Hybrid (task entry + feature reference)** | Complex product, both tutorials and reference needed | Complex architecture, navigation challenges |

**Decision criteria**: User mental model, product complexity, content types.

**Red flags**: Internal org chart as documentation structure, no clear entry point, every page orphaned.

---

## 4. API Reference Approach

**Context**: How to create and maintain API documentation.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **OpenAPI/Swagger generated** | REST API, accuracy critical, automation desired | Limited narrative, generic presentation |
| **Hand-written reference** | Small API, want craft, complex explanations | Drift risk, maintenance burden |
| **Postman collections** | Already using Postman, want try-it functionality | Platform dependency, separate from main docs |
| **Generated + hand-enriched** | Want accuracy + narrative, have resources | Dual maintenance, merge complexity |

**Decision criteria**: API size, change frequency, narrative needs, existing tooling.

**Red flags**: Hand-written for huge API, pure generation for complex concepts, no try-it functionality.

---

## 5. Versioning Strategy

**Context**: How to handle documentation across product versions.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Latest only** | Fast-moving product, short upgrade cycles, low backward compat | Users on old versions have no docs |
| **Major versions** | Breaking changes between majors, users stick to versions | Maintenance of multiple doc sets |
| **All versions** | Long support windows, enterprise customers, slow upgrade | Heavy maintenance, confusion between versions |
| **Latest + LTS** | Mix of fast-moving and stable customers | Clear policy needed, two doc sets |

**Decision criteria**: Support policy, upgrade velocity, customer base, resources.

**Red flags**: No version strategy, outdated version docs never updated, version confusion in navigation.

---

## 6. Tutorial Scope

**Context**: How much to cover in tutorial content.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Minimal (5-minute quickstart)** | Simple product, fast time-to-value, developers figure it out | Abandons users who need more guidance |
| **Comprehensive (end-to-end)** | Complex product, high-touch, enterprise users | Long content, maintenance burden |
| **Modular (composable tutorials)** | Many use cases, different paths, flexible learning | Navigation complexity, overlap management |
| **Interactive (hands-on sandbox)** | Learn by doing, complex setup to abstract | Infrastructure cost, maintenance complexity |

**Decision criteria**: Product complexity, user patience, setup difficulty, resources.

**Red flags**: Comprehensive tutorials for simple product, minimal tutorials for complex product, tutorials nobody completes.

---

## 7. Example Language Coverage

**Context**: Which programming languages to show in examples.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **One language (canonical)** | Single SDK, simple product, clear primary language | Alienates other language users |
| **Top 2-3 languages** | Multi-language SDK, clear top users, manageable scope | Maintenance multiplied, some left out |
| **All supported languages** | Language-agnostic API, broad user base | Massive maintenance, quality variance |
| **Community-contributed** | Open source, language diversity, limited resources | Quality control, inconsistency |

**Decision criteria**: SDK support, user language distribution, maintenance capacity.

**Red flags**: JavaScript-only examples for Python-heavy audience, examples in languages nobody uses, stale non-primary language examples.

---

## 8. Changelog Format

**Context**: How to communicate product changes.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Keep a Changelog format** | Standard format, developer audience, clear structure | May not fit all change types |
| **Narrative release notes** | Marketing-influenced, feature launches, user storytelling | Less scannable, harder to find specifics |
| **GitHub releases** | Open source, developer-only audience, git-integrated | Limited formatting, scattered with code |
| **In-app changelog** | SaaS, want engagement with changes, non-developer users | Implementation cost, separate from docs |

**Decision criteria**: Audience, change frequency, marketing involvement, distribution channels.

**Red flags**: Marketing release notes as only changelog, no changelog at all, changelog nobody can find.

---

## 9. Community Documentation

**Context**: How much to rely on community-contributed content.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Official only** | Quality control critical, small community, resources available | Miss community knowledge, limited scale |
| **Community supplements official** | Active community, clear separation, quality process | Moderation burden, quality variance |
| **Community-first** | Large open source, limited resources, engaged community | Less control, reliability variance |
| **Curated community** | Want contributions with quality bar, resources to review | Review bottleneck, contributor friction |

**Decision criteria**: Community size and engagement, resources, quality requirements.

**Red flags**: Community-first with no moderation, ignoring community contributions, community contributions competing with official docs.

---

## 10. Documentation Success Metrics

**Context**: How to measure documentation effectiveness.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Time to first success** | Developer experience focus, onboarding optimization | Hard to measure accurately, one metric |
| **Support ticket reduction** | Docs as support deflection, cost focus | Lagging indicator, hard to attribute |
| **Page engagement (time, scroll)** | Content quality focus, optimization mindset | Vanity metric risk, doesn't measure success |
| **Task completion rate** | Tutorial-heavy, clear user journeys | Requires instrumentation, privacy considerations |
| **NPS/satisfaction surveys** | Qualitative insight, understanding pain points | Response bias, infrequent signal |

**Decision criteria**: Business goals, measurement capability, optimization focus.

**Red flags**: No measurement, vanity metrics only, metrics without action.
