[dmvdoug]

No, because the first one isn’t talking about writing documentation. It’s talking about knowledge discovery as a learned skill that eroded when web searching replaced how knowledge used to be sought. They actually say: even in the new-fangled domain of web searching, which you would think web natives would be better at, it’s actually people who had learned the skills and techniques of knowledge discovery pre-web who were better at finding what they were looking for. Now, why they think that is the case is a bit harder to grok, having to do with their object-oriented (sorry, sorry) view of understanding/knowledge.

Contrast that with the second quote. Good documentation could be in a dusty book in the library or in a SPA. What makes the documentation good isn’t, however, related to people’s ability to navigate information spaces.

[bryanlarsen]

> What makes the documentation good isn’t, however, related to people’s ability to navigate information spaces.

Then what's the point? If nobody can use the documentation properly, then the term "good documentation" is meaningless.

[card_zero]

I think the article is saying that good documentation is objective, and is not defined by ease of use. You will ingest this difficult documentation and you will like it, because it is good for you.

You might reasonably ask "in what way".

> this is how documentation is, because this arrangement is part of its integrity, and this is how you must learn to use it and work with it.

The word "integrity" comes up six times. Something about integrity.