“Read the documentation.”
It’s a familiar response in technical communities. Sometimes it’s justified. Complex systems require reference material. Edge cases need explanation.
But when documentation becomes a prerequisite for basic functionality, something is wrong.
Documentation should extend understanding — not compensate for confusion.
When explanation replaces usability
There is a difference between depth and opacity.
Advanced APIs, specialized developer tools, or enterprise platforms may require detailed references. That’s reasonable.
But when ordinary workflows depend on external guides, tutorials, and forum threads just to accomplish routine tasks, the design is leaking complexity.
Instead of communicating through structure, the product offloads interpretation onto the user.
The interface becomes a puzzle. The documentation becomes the decoder.
Complexity accumulates quietly
Most systems do not begin opaque.
They grow into it.
New features are added to meet market demand. Configuration layers increase. Integrations expand. Flags multiply. Over time, the mental model required to understand the system diverges from the interface presented to users.
The underlying dynamic is similar to what happens when teams optimize narrowly for output, as explored in the metrics that quietly destroy good software. Feature count increases because it is measurable progress. Structural simplification rarely appears on dashboards.
Documentation then becomes a patch for accumulated decisions.
Culture reinforces the pattern
In many engineering communities, difficulty is normalized.
If a tool is powerful, it is expected to be complex. If something is confusing, the assumption is that the user lacks expertise.
“RTFM” culture reinforces this.
But usability and capability are not opposites.
When products require continuous explanation, they may be optimizing for flexibility at the expense of clarity. Over time, this can erode predictability — a quality that underpins long-term trust, as discussed in predictable software trust.
Predictable systems reduce the need for interpretation.
Documentation as compensation
Documentation often compensates for three structural issues:
- Inconsistent interaction patterns
- Overloaded interfaces
- Poorly constrained configuration
Instead of reducing options, systems add guidance. Instead of simplifying workflows, they create step-by-step tutorials. Instead of rethinking architecture, they write longer manuals.
This mirrors a broader engineering pattern: layering explanation over complexity instead of embedding simplicity into design.
The principle of embedding constraints structurally appears in what secure-by-design software means. Good systems anticipate misuse and confusion by narrowing possibilities upfront.
Documentation cannot fix structural ambiguity.
The psychological cost
When users are told to “read the documentation,” responsibility shifts subtly.
The problem is framed as user misunderstanding rather than design opacity.
Over time, this discourages exploration. It raises the barrier to entry. It privileges insiders who already know the system’s internal logic.
Products that rely heavily on documentation may still function technically — but they risk becoming brittle socially.
And once friction accumulates, trust erodes gradually. Rebuilding it later is harder than simplifying early, a dynamic consistent with trust cannot be rebuilt.
When documentation is appropriate
This is not an argument against documentation.
Reference material is essential for depth:
- API specifications
- Security configuration details
- Advanced customization
- Compliance requirements
But core interactions should not require study.
If basic tasks depend on reading external instructions, the interface has failed to communicate.
A useful design test
A simple question can reveal whether documentation is serving or compensating:
If all documentation disappeared tomorrow, could users still complete the primary workflow?
If the answer is no, the system may depend on explanation rather than structure.
Good design reduces the need for instruction.
Great design makes instruction optional.
“Read the documentation” should be an invitation to go deeper — not a prerequisite for entry.