openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: FAQ page (Re: IPAD)
Date Tue, 04 Dec 2012 23:15:12 GMT
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Keith N. McKenna
<keith.mckenna@comcast.net> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Keith N. McKenna
>>
>> <keith.mckenna@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Keith N. McKenna
>>>> <keith.mckenna@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 26/11/2012 Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Can I install Openoffice on my IPAD?] I nominate this for
an FAQ.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree. But where is our FAQ page currently? Unfortunately,
there's
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> "OpenOffice FAQ" easily reachable by search engines at
>>>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/faq.html and quite outdated (I don't
know
>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>> it's reachable from the home page, but it doesn't seem so).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Time to make a new FAQ available or update the old one and link
to it
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> the current site?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The current location of the FAQ is prominent in search results. 
That
>>>>>> is valuable and worth preserving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the current FAQ contents are out of date.  They would need a
lot
>>>>>> of work to update/correct them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although the FAQ's are presented in a way that is OK for the user,
the
>>>>>> static HTML source is structured in a way that will be painful to
>>>>>> maintain.   Getting a cleaner structure, for example using HTML
>>>>>> definition lists (<dl>) would be easier and could be maintained
via
>>>>>> the CMS web interface.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is another set of FAQ's on the documentation wiki:
>>>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/FAQ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These also appear to be unmaintained.  But I think the wiki version
>>>>>> would be easier to maintain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So one possible resolution could be:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Take anything of use from the FAQ's at
>>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/faq.html and copy them into new FAQ items
on
>>>>>> the wiki
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Update the other FAQ's on the wiki
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) Add new items to the wiki FAQ (like the iPAD question)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4) Delete the old FAQ directory and replace with a single page that
>>>>>> directs the reader to the wiki FAQ's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>      Andrea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Rob;
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been updating some of the FAQ's on the wiki site that were
>>>>> tagged
>>>>> as
>>>>> needing help. I am more than willing to start a comprehensive review
>>>>> and
>>>>> clean-up of the User FAQ's on the documentation wiki if that is the way
>>>>> we
>>>>> decide to go. The advantage is that the wiki is easier to maintain and
>>>>> it
>>>>> is
>>>>> already categorized with a toc on the main page.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The other FAQ on the website is also categorized:
>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/faq.html
>>>>
>>>> So whatever direction we start from we'll probably want to update and
>>>> consolidate.
>>>>
>>>> In my personal opinion, mdtext on the website is a good solution here.
>>>> But my opinion takes a back seat when someone else actually volunteers
>>>> to do the work.  So if you prefer the wiki for this, then you have a
>>>> +1 from me.  I'd just recommend that you fold in anything good from
>>>> the existing website into the wiki, so we have can have a single FAQ
>>>> for the project.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, actually we have a few other FAQs:
>>>>
>>>> http://openoffice.apache.org/community-faqs.html
>>>>
>>>> http://openoffice.apache.org/developer-faqs.html
>>>>
>>>> http://openoffice.apache.org/pmc-faqs.html
>>>>
>>>> Maybe a simplifying assumption could be:
>>>>
>>>> 1) We make the MWiki FAQ's be the user-facing FAQs about the product
>>>> and the project
>>>>
>>>> 2) We have the "internal" project-facing FAQ's on
>>>> openoffice.apache.org website, in their current mdtext format.
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Keith
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Rob;
>>>
>>> Though your simplifying assumption appears on the surface to be a good
>>> compromise the process engineer in me says I see a potential maintenance
>>> disaster looming. It creates essentially two different processes with
>>> different tools to accomplish the same basic task something that I prefer
>>> to
>>> avoid if possible. By using one or the other you cut down on the training
>>> necessary to bring new people up to speed and you centralize the
>>> maintenance
>>> and lessen the chance that something slips under the radar.
>>>
>>
>> We already have different tools and different processes:  static HTML,
>> static mdtext and wiki.  I'm proposing reducing it from 3 to 2.
>>
> Agreed, all I am saying is that the more ways there are to do the same thing
> the greater both the possibility and the probability of maintainability
> headaches.
>
>
>> As far as process goes, I think the product-related questions will
>> generally be updated by those interested in documentation and support.
>
>
> Agreed. One reason that I tend toward using the wiki for these is that it
> could attract volunteers to help update and even add new ones that may be
> hesitant about editing a web page.
>
>
>>   But the project-related questions -- the ones currently on
>> openoffice.apache.org -- will probably be updated by the PMC.  I think
>> those questions, which deal with project membership, process
>> definition, etc., are quasi-official in nature and it is not a bad
>> thing if editing them is harder and more restricted than editing a
>> public wiki.
>>
>
> I agree here also. I do believe that there are ways to lock down sections of
> the wiki also. So either way is doable.
>
>
>> And let's not forget the harsh transition that some has navigating
>> from an openoffice.apache.org web page to the wiki.  The look is
>> different and there is no context or reverse navigation.  The user has
>> been teleported into another galaxy.
>>
> This is all to true. Hell I go back and fourth everyday and feel like I have
> been transported to another galaxy!

hee...this is how I feel on cwiki vs MediaWiki.


>
>
>> I sometimes wonder whether we should move *all* of the
>> openoffice.apache.org website contents onto the www.openoffice.org
>> website, and work to unify the look and feel of the other pieces, a
>> larger reworking of:
>>
>
> You are not alone in wondering this. What amazes me is that users manage to
> figure it all out some how and don't just throw up there hands in disgust.

Maybe they like the adventure of it! :)

>
>
>> 1) Move openoffice.apache.org onto www.openoffice.org
>>
>> 2) Move all CWiki pages into MWiki
>>
>> 3) Setup redirect of blog from blogs.apache.org/ooo to blog.openoffice.org
>>
>> What we have now is very fragmented.  But that is a topic for another
>> day....
>>
>
> You do not want to get me started on that topic. The one thing I can say is
> that what we have today has the major attribute of a good vacuum cleaner. It
> manages to work, I just do not for the life of me know how.
>
>>> I already know what kind of shape the documentation section of the wiki
>>> is
>>> in. Let me take a look at the FAQ's on the web site and see how far out
>>> of
>>> date they are. It may be that rewriting the user ones in dtet may make
>>> more
>>> sense.
>>>
>>
>> Sounds good.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
> I looked through the FAQ pages on the web site and they are in as bad a
> shape as the wiki ones are. The major difference is that there are more of
> them on the wiki. No matter which way we go this is not going to be a simple
> and straight forward procedure. There is going to be a lot of axe wielding
> needed to clear the deadwood and some decisions will need to be made around
> how much data around older versions do we keep. The general rule of thumb on
> the documentation section of the wiki was update it, but keep all the old
> information also. As a result there is info in some articles about version 2
> and even version 1.

OK, until yesterday, I was not even aware there WAS an FAQ on the
website. I would immediately suggest to cull *these*, assuming they're
still valuable, and pop them onto the wiki somehow. I will help with
this effort over the next month as I can.

Generally, I think the wiki would be more conducive to upkeep since it
doesn't involve committer rights.

And, if we could get the wiki search to work -- or create a new one --
all the better.


>
>>> Regards
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

“How wrong is it for a woman to expect the man to build the world
 she wants, rather than to create it herself?”

     -- Anais Nin

Mime
View raw message