If you're pitching a managed platform for documentation, then the documentation for the product itself has to look and behave brilliantly. It's the showcase for your product. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to do that. The website seems to have a confused mix of styles and it quite hard to read somehow. Also, grammar is super-important in this domain - I see SaaS has already been picked up, but it's also super-weird to see the plural of Documentation being Documentations. Reading the terms and privacy is also hard work - there's lots more work on grammar required here, too.
The focus seems a bit blurred, too. The claim is that it's for Support, User Guides, Knowledge Bases, Documentation and Change Logs. But the features list also talks about multuple Blogs. It's not at all clear where they fit in.
Also, being misled is a massive turn-off. First you say
"User Guides + Knowledge Bases + Documentations + Changelogs",
but then caveat it with
"Currently offering User Guides only".
But then later on the same page you say
"Apps like Intercom, Crisp, and Helpscout, offer only one aspect of support pages and that is Knowledge Bases. Subsection covers all four: User Guides, Knowledge Bases, Documentations, and Changelogs"
You don't cover all four, you _plan_ to cover all four in the future.
The software itself is pretty slick. Currently we're using Crisp Chat's help docs for our SaaS, as well as a static site generator for our API docs. I think this could reasonably replace both.
One thing I really like is the layout. Having general topics on the left, as well as anchor based menu in each article is super helpful.
You should flesh out your your own docs before showing it off. For the people that are buying documentation products they are comparing your product to many others including open source tools which come with substantially more evolved demonstrations of what they do.
Throwing stuff over the fence works for some markets and is generally encouraged by HN, but it doesn't for a lot of markets which have substantially more money to spend on these kinds of solutions. In return for more money, you need to withstand basic scrutiny.
The idea is solid but as someone who is in the market for something like this, the product doesnt currently inspire confidence. Specifically, you’re a tool to create User Guides and yet you haven’t created a user guide for your own site. If you don’t have user guides for your own service that indicates a few possibilities:
- the tool is too difficult to use for even yourself to be worth it
- you don’t use your tool deeply so you don’t have intuitive understanding of what is needed to be improve
- you don’t actually take user guides seriously and think they are important for a company to provide
When looking at this kind of service I’m evaluating on two levels: my customers experience, and my authoring experience. By not having your own user guide filled out I’m unable to evaluate the end customer experience (search, navigation, etc).
I know you’re in beta, but I don’t know why you’d do a show HN without at least having your own user guide filled out. A big wasted opportunity.
It seems to me you're throwing a bunch of barely-built stuff at the wall to see what has traction to then actually build out. I don't think HN is a good way to do that. This now feels like a waste of everyone's time.
I think that’s a bit harsh. HN should absolutely be a place to try stuff out, as long as you’re clear about it. OP was mostly clear, even though the homepage copy might not be ideal.
Somehow I have missed your comment. Wanted to thank you the support. And, fixed most of the copy as we speak. Stating clearly the stage the product is in and what's to come. The intention was "to promise", but I can see now that some of the copy could have sounded as if everything is ready now. An honest semantics mistake.
I was thinking of spinning op a Docusaurus v2 for a while. But was annoyed by the forced markdown editing for my team mates who are not devs. Gitbook is okay alternative, but forces you to pay per user. But just decided to go for gitbook now, it's basic plan is actually ok.
I understand your careful approach, but I would just set pricing for now, at the moment I don't want to invest all the time of setting up docs and then you having it shut down.
Fair points. Yes, will try to soon have a better understanding about the pricing and post it up.
“Teams” is something I am trying to launch shortly so users within a company can collaborate on various docs.
I hope you get to keep Subsection in the back of your mind, and once you feel we’re here to stay, I would love to have you and your team on Subsection.
I am Val and you’ll most likely find me on the chat support.
Don't get discouraged by HN's negativity. The product may be a little rough around the edges but it's starting to look great, congrats on being on beta and good luck with the rest of the path.
Thank you. I really appreciate that. I look forward to improving it and fixing the areas some HNs have pointed out. Also, I am happy people are taking the time to look at it.
Please don't ignore accessibility. Docs that aren't accessible are a big no-no and a dealbreaker for my company. I've had a quick look at your own userguide and the results aren't good.
Ok, sure! I’m assuming this is a demo of documentation created in Subsection, so I’m not sure who would expect it to require email anyway. Click
> Free Demo
> Email is not required to test Subsection!
> Start
Ok, an entire screen to say that again? There’s nothing to do on this screen, so it seems completely unnecessary. How can “no email required” be the most important information about the demo anyway? But sure, click
> Demo Created
> You can now create your very first guide!
> Next
Another screen that says nothing and where I do nothing? I don’t even know in what way a demo was “created”. I just want to see what the documentation looks like, but I guess this is a demo of an admin interface. There’s a slow video here showing me things I can’t do on this screen. Am I supposed to memorize what happens in the video to use on a different screen?
After this I get into the admin UI which seems straightforward - I didn’t play around much with it, but it doesn’t look too complicated. You should jump here in a single step after I click the demo button on the landing page!
One of the most important aspects that doesn't seem to be covered here is data retention and ownership. Looking through the settings page I don't see any ways to eject and backup all the documentation that was invested into the project. Downloading the data as markdown or as a git repo is pretty important to be able to trust it won't be lost if you disappear or out grow the features of the service.
Great point! Adding this to the list. I agree that it’s very important to have this functionality in, so users can be free to move away at any time without feeling tied to the tool.
I'm in the market for one of these. Right now all alternatives that have embeddable forms and chat are weirdly expensive. Gitbook would be fantastic, but if you want to include some kind of help desk you're forced to take users off site. Which is a decision I can't quite understand. I mean, users go from the application, to gitlab, to an offsite help desk just to get an answer.
The focus seems a bit blurred, too. The claim is that it's for Support, User Guides, Knowledge Bases, Documentation and Change Logs. But the features list also talks about multuple Blogs. It's not at all clear where they fit in.
Also, being misled is a massive turn-off. First you say "User Guides + Knowledge Bases + Documentations + Changelogs", but then caveat it with "Currently offering User Guides only". But then later on the same page you say "Apps like Intercom, Crisp, and Helpscout, offer only one aspect of support pages and that is Knowledge Bases. Subsection covers all four: User Guides, Knowledge Bases, Documentations, and Changelogs"
You don't cover all four, you _plan_ to cover all four in the future.