<p>Back in the days of Unix, you couldn't even <a href="http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/emacs.html#Exiting" rel="noreferrer">close a software</a> without reading the man page first. Then came Mac and Windows with consistent menu layout and keyboard shortcuts, but you still saw paper user manuals shipped in the shrinkwrap box, which described each and every single operation possible in the app. After the Internet, help files became html documents.</p>

<p>Nowadays with <em>Web 2.0</em> applications, you hardly see the Help. Even <a href="http://mail.google.com/support/" rel="noreferrer">if it's there</a>, they simply describe some specific tasks. In other words, the apps are relying more on the <em>common sense</em> or <a href="http://www.sensible.com/" rel="noreferrer"><em>don't-make-me-think</em></a> factor of the user base.</p>

<p>Years ago Microsoft came up with a concept called <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997506.aspx" rel="noreferrer">Inductive User Interface</a>, which basically tells programmers to put in instructions on the apps itself, but I am not sure how popular that idea is.</p>

<p>Are help files, user manuals, and context sensitive online help with F1 key dead? Have I failed if user could not find out what to do from the UI? If not, what degree of help should I provide? (both for desktop and web app)</p>

<p>EDIT: How does documentation/help file mesh with agile development methods? For example, should the developers think twice before UI changes that may obsolete a bunch of screenshots?</p>

[{'answer_id': 60774, 'author': 'Gishu', 'author_id': 1695, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1695', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': False, 'text': "<p>No way. You look at the amount of documentation and training and marketing expenditure even MS puts up.. you'll get your answer.\nTry using someone else's product, and you will learn the true value of documentation - I'm learning Godiagrams right now..  :)<br>\nSo I can say without a doubt.. <strong>NO and it never will.. no matter how intuitive user interfaces get.. beyond a certain size, you will need help and training.</strong> But by understanding the user and what he needs to get done, you could design it such that the time he/she needs to learn the system to do his/her routine tasks is minimal. </p>\n"}, {'answer_id': 60777, 'author': 'Fire Lancer', 'author_id': 6266, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/6266', 'pm_score': 2, 'selected': True, 'text': '<blockquote>\n  <p>Have I failed if user could not find out what to do from the UI?\n  If not, what degree of help should I provide? (both for desktop and web app)</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>They should be able to use your your app to do basic things from the UI. eg say for an image editor, they should be able to create a new image, and draw some lines then save it just by looking at the UI.</p>\n\n<p>This is best done by following common layouts (like having new, open and save under file in the menubar, and using the standard open and save dialogs).</p>\n\n<p>The same goes for webapps, people exspect to be able to do the basic stuff without having to read the docs, but for more advanced features people will still read the docs. (eg most pople will read the docs for say BB code, or markdown at least sometimes, but they expect to be able to post without having to know them)</p>\n\n<blockquote>\n  <p>Are help files, user manuals, and context sensitive online help with F1 key dead?</p>\n</blockquote>\n\n<p>They still have their place. People will use them to learn about how to best use various features, for example markdown or bbcode, or how to use filters to get certain effects in an image editor.</p>\n'}, {'answer_id': 60778, 'author': 'Shog9', 'author_id': 811, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/811', 'pm_score': 3, 'selected': False, 'text': "<h3>Three notes on help:</h3>\n<ol>\n<li>F1 / stand-alone context-sensitive help was always doomed. It was hidden by default, and so the people who most needed it were least likely to read it. There was hope at one time that we would be able to train users to always hit F1 when they ran into trouble, but too many applications without useful context-sensitive help... combined with too many bizarre help interfaces... pretty much killed this.</li>\n<li>Manuals are as important now as they ever were. Not so many printed manuals anymore, but online manuals are better than ever. The proliferation of wiki-as-a-manual systems has helped here, reducing the up-front cost of creating good online documentation. Of course, plenty of people <em>just don't read</em>...</li>\n<li>The beauty of using web pages as an application interface is that you <em>can</em> combine useful context-sensitive help with the UI, removing the barrier for novices and others who otherwise couldn't be bothered to look for relevant information when they get stuck.</li>\n</ol>\n<p>Of course, there are still plenty of apps, even online apps, designed with obtuse interfaces and a tiny little help icon in a corner somewhere, presumably hoping that the latter mitigates the former. Pity them.</p>\n"}, {'answer_id': 61145, 'author': 'jcnnghm', 'author_id': 4767, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4767', 'pm_score': 1, 'selected': False, 'text': "<p>I've been incorporating context-sensitive screencasts into my applications.  I've found this helps non-technical users grasp the application quickly, without asking for live help.</p>\n"}, {'answer_id': 703093, 'author': 'dan gibson', 'author_id': 4495, 'author_profile': 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/4495', 'pm_score': 0, 'selected': False, 'text': '<p>The Idiot/Dummy books must be doing quite well. Imagine if the standard application help was as good as those books. The standard F1 help for a lot of apps is just awful.</p>\n\n<p>Is help dead? No, but some of it should be taken out and shot.</p>\n'}]
['https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/60772', 'https://Stackoverflow.com', 'https://Stackoverflow.com/users/3827/']