Again, I am sorry if my comments have ruffled anyone's feathers. I am not going to argue. My sole intent is a positive one. And, indeed, I am humbled by the ongoing work of this community over a period of time that I, until now, have not been involved.
I beleive, it is my impression, that between Django 1.1 and now, on the verge of its second major version, there has been a tremendous amount of Python software develpment. And the internal commenting as well as the public documentation has trailed along ad hoc. It can be said without legitimate reproach that any system whether it is thermodynamics or a system of communication, such as our documentation, will naturally tend toward entropy unless something actively intervenes. And we have developed a fairly complex system compared to, say, werksgeud. That patchwork approach has disrupted a flow of utility for users in both public documentation and internal commenting. If this is true, Django has strayed from principles of its foundation. And our motto: "The framework for perfectionists with deadlines."; holds true only until fininding oneself lost in the documentation. Tim is exactly right; this is with no doubt a non-trivial issue. Is Django capable of tackling non-trivial issues? If not I am in the wrong place (a challenge to Django, relax, it's not personal) because I believe Django should be setting the standard. And this issue will not be resolved by an ad hoc approach; meaning our traditional methodology of a problem ticket reporting process is not amenable. This calls for something else if it calls for anything. However, Wim has a good idea! Some exploratory research is a very reasonable first step toward an objective problem definition. Tim, how hard would it be to present every visitor to the documentation with a pop-up (or some other kind of) general invitation to visit a link on Survey Monkey to help us with some feedback? On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 7:02:56 PM UTC-5, Doug Epling wrote: > > I filed bug report > #25952 <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25952>but apparently it was > in the wrong place. And I referenced this post > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/django-users/documentation/django-users/1qHviCZMPJA/_8qVb0YYdhAJ>, > > but I was thinking it was this group ... I wonder how that happened? > > So I am hereby suggesting that the road map for the v. 2.0 release include > revamped documentation. > > It should begin as soon as possible with the somewhat standard best > practice of collecting "find what you were looking for" or "was this page > helpful" or "rate this page on its organization, clarity, brevity, etc." > data on every single existing page. > > It might also be helpful to evaluate how different audiences access the > docs. Tutorials are great -- module and class libraries, not so much. > > With resulting user feedback along with expert categorization of > documentation use cases, as with any writing exercise, there must be an > outline. The existing outline might be a good place to start. > > Oh, and those pesky deadlines, when is v. 2.0 slated for release? > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/373526bb-be5e-4ca0-b5cb-2ae558c996b8%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
