any2.video vs Hiring a Technical Writer: Two Answers to the Same Coverage Problem
A good technical writer is one of the most valuable hires a software company can make, and nothing on this page argues otherwise. Written documentation and verified video cover different parts of the coverage problem, so choosing between them comes down to which part is broken right now.
What each option proves
| Question | Technical writer | any2.video |
|---|---|---|
| What it produces | Searchable, linkable, correctable prose. | A recording of the task completing, plus a written guide. |
| Answers 'where is the button' | In words, which the reader has to match to the screen. | By showing it. |
| Answers 'why does this exist' | Very well, since explaining is what prose is for. | Poorly, because video is bad at reference material. |
| Coverage speed | Fast for text, slow for anything that needs a screen capture. | Two days a task, in batches. |
| Where it is found | Your docs site and search engines. | YouTube and assistants, where people ask product questions. |
| Staying current | Depends on discipline and the review process. | A version tag plus a re-run triggered by each release. |
When a technical writer is the right choice
- Your documentation is incomplete, contradictory or neglected. Fix that first, because video built on bad docs only spreads the errors.
- The content is reference material, such as parameters, API surfaces, limits and conceptual explanations.
- Readers need to search, copy and link, and nobody copies a command out of a video.
- You need the content built into the release process instead of sitting beside it.
When it is not
- The written step exists and users still get it wrong, which usually means the screen does not match the sentence.
- The question is whether it actually works, which prose cannot settle and evidence on screen can.
- Your buyers form opinions on YouTube, where your documentation never appears.
- The writer you hired spends the week making screenshots instead of writing.
The order to do things in
Fix the docs first. If the written procedure is wrong, a video of it is just a more convincing wrong procedure. We would rather turn down the work than film a procedure we know is wrong.
Once the docs are right, what is missing is proof and a way for users to recognise the screen. A user who read the step and still cannot find the toggle does not need the sentence repeated. They need to see the screen.
Every walkthrough comes with prose
That is why the written guide and troubleshooting notes are included instead of sold separately. Each verified run produces the exact steps that worked, in order, along with the attempts that failed and their fixes. Because it comes from a run and not from memory, the result is often better than what the docs had, and your writer can copy it straight into the documentation.
What a writer gets from this
Screen capture is the least valuable thing a technical writer does, and it takes up their week. A verified run gives them a timestamped log of what actually happened, which is the raw material they would otherwise rebuild by hand.
Questions
Should we hire a technical writer or buy video?
If the documentation is wrong or missing, hire the writer first, because video built on inaccurate docs multiplies the errors. If the docs are solid and users still get stuck, what they lack is proof, and a verified walkthrough supplies it.
Does the video replace our documentation?
No, and it should not. Prose is searchable, copyable and cheap to correct. Video is bad at reference material and good at showing a task finish.
Do we get anything our writer can use?
Yes. Every walkthrough comes with the exact steps that worked and the attempts that failed, generated from the run log, in a form you can paste straight into your docs.
The fastest way to settle this is one task, done both ways. The first sample is free.
$ get-sample → $ cd /library