The problem with adopting “bleeding-edge” tools

The blog post talks about how many companies are adopting and using so called “bleeding-edge” technologies to accomplish their technical communication goals. Instead of going with accepted software standards, they adopt these new technologies that claim to do ‘whatever you want’. The blog post uses Jekyll as an example. The author says that their are two fundamental flaws with the documentation associated with these “bleeding-edge” alternatives:

  1. Their documentation is very simple.
  2. Because of this, the documentation is about ‘5 to 10 percent’ complete.

If you try and twist these alternatives to what you want them to do, the author says you end up with a Rube Goldberg machine. The author goes on to say that these newer alternatives are not designed to handle complex tasks. He said that he was force to integrate different software solution when using Jekyll to get it to work they way he wanted. He offered up the industry standard DITA as an example of something that has already been established and is working. He says that DITA was designed from the ground up to handle complex tasks.

He concludes with a notion that “Any system you use will get complex when you try to satisfy complex requirements.” He does, however, point out that if you do not have the time to integrate different “bleeding-edge” system, then an industry standard like DITA would be more beneficial to you.

The problem with adopting “bleeding-edge” technologies

Julian G Klimas