> Our documentation process worked (we wrote documentation and it largely satisfied the readers)<p>IIRC this is quite an understatement; Qt documentation is regarded as some of the best in GUI toolkits.
I really enjoyed his blog!<p>On-topic: Documentation is <i>good</i>, and I'm glad someone like him was able to get it going.<p>We used Qt for internal tools, in my Day Job, but never shipped anything on it.
> More documentation was gradually written by technical writers, less by programmers. That led to some better explanations, some longer explanations, to lots of words, and here and there to meaningless drivel. ... "SetFoo sets the foo" without mentioning either the nature or details of foo. Written by someone who didn't understand what foo is or what matters about foo.<p>This is a process problem more than anything. If the technical writers don't understand the problem or solution then people either aren't communicating, the writers don't have sufficient access, or the writers aren't qualified.