The danger in documentation isn’t always what you say. It’s when you say it.
One misplaced step, one hidden prerequisite, and the whole workflow collapses. The user doesn’t stop to ask if they misunderstood. They blame the instructions. They blame the product. They blame you.
Sequence is invisible when it works, but brutal when it fails. It holds the work together the way gravity holds the world together: quietly, constantly, without applause.
The earliest technical writers didn’t treat order as optional. They knew it was the difference between getting the work done and getting hurt.
When Instructions Were Survival, Not Style
Long before technical writing became a job title, procedure was written because lives and money were at stake.
In the 1st century BCE, Vitruvius produced De Architectura, ten volumes on how to build safely. His prose wasn’t ornamental. It was procedural: list the materials, state the hazards, specify the order. Mix lime wrong and you didn’t just waste time, you burned your hands.
A thousand years later, al-Jazarī, the Muslim engineer, compiled illustrated manuals for ingenious machines: clocks, pumps, automata. His guides were direct: do this, in this sequence. Each step came with a diagram so the gearing never had to be imagined.
By the 16th century, Georgius Agricola’s De Re Metallica pushed the form further. Page after page combined smelters and shafts with procedures, warnings, and roles. He didn’t just show how. He showed what, why, and who. His readers weren’t theorizing about metallurgy. They were waist-deep in mines, surrounded by fire and ore.
The risks look different today, but the principle hasn’t changed. Sequence may no longer burn your hands or collapse a mine, but when it breaks, it still derails the work and erodes trust.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Refined Draft to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.