Marcus (Ono) wrote:
Am 12/03/2012 11:11 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de>
wrote:
Am 12/03/2012 09:19 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Keith N. McKenna
<keith.mcke...@comcast.net> wrote:
Rob Weir wrote:
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti<pesce...@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http://www.openoffice.org/faq.html and quite outdated (I don't know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But the current FAQ contents are out of date.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.
I also would like to see FAQs in the Wiki, for both parts. FAQs have the
attribute that they are never complete, need to be updated regularily
and
nearly anybody has something to add.
A website in mdtext is also easy to update and anyone can update it.
In some sense it is even easier than the wiki, since with the
anonymous mode an account registration is not even needed, unlike the
wiki,
I don't want to talk bad about the anonymous feature of the CMS.
However, it's not widely known how to use it but I think how to use and
change a wikipage is known better.
I'd also disagree with the belief that FAQs need to be frequently
changed. They only need to be frequently *asked*. For example, the
question about OpenOffice on iPad only needs to be answered once. it
does not require frequent community enhancement.
Right, the better word is "extend", to add more content.
So, it should be the best if indeed anybody can do the update. That's
best
done within the Wiki. Mistakes can be corrected fast and bad changes
reverted easily.
The same is true of the website.
But let's be honest: the FAQ's on the wiki have been neglected for a
long time. Technological concerns are not the reason for this, since
they are already on the wiki. Our problems are elsewhere.
It seems nobody wanted to do the work that is needed to keep it
up-to-date. ;-)
My preference for the mdtext is it is easier to style and looks
better. Wikis are dog butt ugly, IMHO. Fine for collaborating on
text, but for final publication they are ugly. IMHO.
I doubt that we need pretty styling here. The users want information for
their question(s). It's not the primary goal to present it most pretty
and nice but competent and complete.
Furthermore, I support the standpoint of Keith: Re-new both FAQs in the
*same* type of media.
Marcus
Folks;
Whether we talk about the outdated mess on the wiki or the outdated mess
on the web site it comes down to the same problem. Nobody felt the need
or the inclination to do the ongoing support that they need.
Given the truth of the above statement I will raise my hand and say I
will take on the task of attempting to bring some coherent sense to the
what we have today. I will send a proposal to that effect to the list as
a separate thread.
Regards
Keith
