# The three levels of technical documentation

## Definition

Picture technical documentation as a garden. Seen that way, it falls into three stages, depending on how it is tended.

The metaphor turns on a point of garden design: an English garden looks natural but is still deliberately planned, while a French garden imposes a visible, geometric order - much like the difference between unstructured and structured documentation.

> **Diagram: The three maturity levels of technical documentation**

**The three maturity levels of technical documentation.**

## The three levels compared

Three components set the levels apart: the documentation process, the team, and the formats.

| | Level 1: the wasteland | Level 2: the English garden | Level 3: the French garden |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Process** | None | Reliable | Reliable |
| **Team** | Whoever happens to be available | Dedicated | Dedicated |
| **Formats** | Unsuitable, or suitable but used inconsistently | Suitable but unstructured, used consistently | Structured, used consistently |
| **Format examples** | Word processing | FrameMaker type | DocBook, DITA XML |
| **Content model** | — | Topic-based documentation | Structured DITA XML |

A word on the formats themselves. Word-processing formats are unsuitable for **technical writing**: they don't separate content from layout cleanly enough. **FrameMaker**-type formats are suitable — they separate layout from content, more or less — but they are not semantic. The structured formats are the semantic ones, such as **DocBook** and [**DITA XML**](https://docs.redaction-technique.org/en/formats/structured-vs-unstructured-formats/).

## What each step up brings

From the wasteland to the English garden
: A reliable process, a dedicated team, and suitable formats used consistently. The English garden — cultivated but informal — is already a fine place to be: it guarantees quality information for the user.

From the English garden to the French garden
: Structured formats. The French garden — formal, deliberate, every element in its place — goes further, giving a company tighter control over its content and lower production costs. That second step is the move from mere technical writing to true [technical communication](https://docs.redaction-technique.org/en/costs/copywriting-to-technical-communication/).

## Where does your documentation stand?

Ask the three questions the levels are built on:

1. **Process.** Is there a reliable documentation process?
2. **Team.** Is documentation produced by a dedicated team, or by whoever happens to be available?
3. **Formats.** Are your formats suitable and used consistently? Are they structured?

If the answer to any of the first two questions is no, or your formats are unsuitable or used inconsistently, you are in the wasteland. With a process, a team, and suitable but unstructured formats, you are in the English garden. Structured formats on top of both make it the French garden.

> **Caution: The format alone is not enough**
>
> No single component carries the result on its own. Hand DITA XML tooling to people whose real job isn't **technical communication**, or skip a proper documentation life-cycle process, and the outcome will disappoint no matter how good the format. Only the three together — process, dedicated team, and suitable format — deliver the result you're after.

## Related articles

- [From document to modular document base](https://docs.redaction-technique.org/en/formats/modular-documentation/)
- [KISS Principle of Simplicity](https://docs.redaction-technique.org/en/costs/kiss-principle/)
- [Formats and tools](https://docs.redaction-technique.org/en/costs/formats-and-tools/)

---

Source: https://docs.redaction-technique.org/en/costs/three-levels-of-documentation/