from:"Barbara Duprey"

[libreoffice-documentation] Contributing

2011-01-03 Thread Barbara Duprey


I'd be glad to help with documentation -- how can I start being useful?

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Contributing

2011-01-04 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/4/2011 1:57 AM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi Barbara, :-)

You could try telling us briefly about your degree of experience in
documentation-writing? We might be able to better advise you in that
case... ;-)

You could also take a look at [1], where you will see a list of
documentation still needing to be drafted

Some people like to work on LibreOffice documentation via the
oooauthors site [2]...

What are you interested in doing?

[1]
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation#Documentation_Still_To_Be_Drafted
[2] http://oooauthors.org

David Nelson

I was a computer programmer with IBM's Federal Systems Division for 28 years (1966-94), working on
things like the Apollo program, air traffic control, and satellite command and control. During that
time, I did a very large amount of technical writing, for the last ten years or so in BookMaster
(IBM's tagged markup language), including design specifications, course material, user's guides,
proposals, and so on. After IBM sold FSD, I (along with about 2000 others!) was declared "surplus to
their requirements" (i.e., laid off); I'm now officially an IBM retiree. After that I did some
contract work; one job was document conversion of about 15 volumes of IBM technical documentation
from HTML to two other documentation languages using Perl on Unix, another was writing some of the
built-in help for a couple of IBM products, another was writing PowerPoint courseware for a couple
of Tivoli products.

Since then, I've done a lot of "odds and ends" for personal/home business use -- mostly using
Writer, with the largest project being user's guides for some games my son wrote. I've also used
Base, designing a system for a volunteer activity tracking deed restriction violations, Calc for a
few quick-and-dirty spreadsheets, and a very small amount of work in Impress.

I'd be interested in writing, editing, proofreading -- whatever is most needed. At the moment I have
OOo 3.1.1 on several Windows systems, with my primary computer Win7. I typically don't install betas
and wait a while after release to start using products, but obviously I'd be willing to get LibO. My
primary focus is on helping users, especially new users, and I've been pretty active on the OOo help
and discuss mailing lists, and lately the LibO versions of those. I'll check out that wiki
reference, thanks! (Surprised to see the reference to the oooauthors site, thought there'd be a
separate one!)

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Contributing

2011-01-04 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/4/2011 2:25 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:

On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 09:17 -0600, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 1/4/2011 1:57 AM, David Nelson wrote:

Some people like to work on LibreOffice documentation via the
oooauthors site [2]...


(Surprised to see the reference to the oooauthors site, thought there'd be a 
separate one!)


Space at the OOoAuthors website was offered, but AFAIK no one from
LibreOffice is using it.

The LibreOffice docs team are currently evaluating Alfresco; if you're
interested in participating in that evaluation, ask for a login.


I don't know if I'd have any real contribution to make there -- I haven't been involved in the 
process to this point to have a good basis for evaluation.



Related info: OOoAuthors will soon be changing its name to ODFAuthors
and moving to a server run by the German organisation that is hosting
The Document Foundation. ODFAuthors will be available as a resource to
OpenOffice.org, LibreOffice, or other community groups producing
documentation for open source programs.

--Jean


Great move! Sounds like a very strong measure in support of ODF, and much better than splitting the 
communities entirely apart.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Contributing

2011-01-04 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/4/2011 4:21 PM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi Barbara, :-)

Well, that's quite a resume you have, and you'd certainly be a
valuable asset for the docs team.

Thanks!

At the present time, there's not yet a great deal of hard organization
within the LibreOffice documentation project. This is something that
will hopefully change. I'm about the closest thing there is to a docs
team lead at present, batting for LibO.

I'm interested in working up an internal flow and organization for
LibO documentation, and I recently set up an Alfresco server for that
at https://documentation.traduction.biz. There are currently about 8
docs team members with accounts there. If you're interested, let me
know and I'll give you an account there, too.

If you think I'd be useful there, count me in! Along the way, I've also done quite a lot of process
work (process documentation, coordinating departmental processes, doing evaluations relative to the
Capability Maturity Model, etc.) and if that's applicable at all (given the fact that I really know
very little about the existing process!) I'd be glad to help.

There's not much happening on Alfresco yet. This is certainly because
it's new and I haven't had time to lead the way and start a tangible
work project there yet. I'm busy with other work until the 10th, so it
will happen shortly after that.

After that, it depends on whether docs contributors start taking it up
as a tool. If they do, then either that Alfresco system will get
integrated into the TDF Web infrastructure, or another Alfresco will
be set up and there will be a migration of workflow and data.

Jean has been posting about oooauthors/odfauthors.

It's pretty much up to you to decide how, what and where you want to
contribute. You're welcome to give me a buzz if I can be of any help
to you. ;-)

David Nelson

I guess I'll start by looking at what is on the wiki to-do list from your earlier post (and
installing LibO, of course). And feel free to point me in any direction you'd like.

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Contributing

2011-01-05 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/4/2011 9:35 PM, Ron Faile wrote:

On 1/4/2011 9:02 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

Barbara,
Ron Faile has been taking the lead on the user guides, and I've been
contributing a bit, along with at least one other person. The Getting
Started book is pretty much done (except for making corrections and filling
in a few blanks as we learn the answers), so IMO the next step is to work on
the Writer Guide.

What we are doing is rebranding the OOo Writer Guide chapters and adapting
them to LibO: adding info on features that are in LibO but not OOo, deleting
or revising references to older versions of OOo, changing screenshots as
necessary, that sort of thing. Major revisions are being deferred until
later; at this point we just want to get books ready as quickly as possible.

Ron has done the first step (applying the LibO template) and possibly the
second (changing refs from OOo to LibO). Now we all need to pick chapters
and do more detailed work. You'll find links to the files in the lower part
of the table on this page,
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/Development and below that,
the template. The workflow description at the top --at least the bits about
putting things into different folders-- does not correspond to the way we're
doing things at the moment; we're just replacing the files with updated
ones. All the old files stay on the wiki and can be recovered at any time.

So basically what you do is: pick a chapter, put your name in the checkout
column so others know the file is being worked on, do whatever is necessary
(with change tracking on), put the file back, change the feedback column to
BACK (so Ron knows it's ready for him to check), and remove your name from
the checkout column. If you're not sure how to replace a file on the wiki,
just ask. I hope I described that process correctly; if not, I'm sure David
or Ron will correct me.

Hal

Hi Barbara, all.

Been busy today or would have gotten back sooner. Hal is right, the best place to start is on the
Writer Guide chapters. The basic rebranding is done, but they need to be reviewed, have formatting
for the tables and tips boxes updated and replace any screenshots that need it. I'd have a look at
one of the Getting Started chapters to see what we're aiming for. Then install the chapter
template on the development page (in resources) and checkout a chapter. There is a zip file next
to the template with all the screenshots I've done. That should make it easier to update them as
you go. And feel free to ask any questions you may have.

When you install the template and open one of the chapters for the first time, it will ask you
about updating the links, say yes (there were some minor updates to the template after the Writer
guide files were uploaded). Also I realize that all the style names have OOo instead of LibO.
Seems like changing the names causes some hicups with custom styles are applied, so I have left
that for a later time. Welcome to the team!

Ron

OK, I'd like to work on Chapter 9, Working with Tables. I see that I should put my wiki ID (Dupreyb)
in the Checkout column. The existing file already is using the template, so would there still be a
need for me to install that anywhere? Where am I supposed to work on the chapter? It would seem that
there's a resources development page, but I don't know where or whether that is what is meant to be
used as a workspace -- or maybe there's now or soon to be an Alfresco location where I can work in
Writer.

Once the chapter .odt file is in the right place, I can turn on change tracking (and versioning?)
and make the changes; I've gotten the Getting Started with Writer chapter for reference, and I'm
assuming that any screenshots used there that are relevant in the Tables chapter are in the zip
file. Might I need any others, and if so, how should I go about acquiring them? (Presumably using
Paint on a print-screen image is not sufficient!) Is there some definitive list of the differences
between the currently-described features and operation, and new ones LibO has, or is this a matter
of trying the capabilities in LibO?

Eventually, I'll also need to know how to put the file where it can be reviewed (if it doesn't just
stay where it is, with the appropriate control table update to show it's ready). And if something is
supposed to be done in the control table's Document Development column, and the associated file
(which is apparently a kind of note holder for communication with the team), who sets that up,
where, and how is it updated?

Sorry if all this is really obvious -- but the first time is always the
hardest, right?

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Contributing

2011-01-06 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/6/2011 12:36 AM, Ron Faile wrote:

On 1/5/2011 9:35 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

OK, I'd like to work on Chapter 9, Working with Tables. I see that I should put my wiki ID
(Dupreyb) in the Checkout column. The existing file already is using the template, so would there
still be a need for me to install that anywhere? Where am I supposed to work on the chapter? It
would seem that there's a resources development page, but I don't know where or whether that is
what is meant to be used as a workspace -- or maybe there's now or soon to be an Alfresco
location where I can work in Writer.

Yes. It is already using a version of the LibO template, just not the latest one. Installing the
new template will just make sure that all the styles in each document you work on will be
consistent and have the latest revisions. If you want to install it, just download the file, open
it in LibO and click File, Templates, Save. Type the name of the template file
(LibO3_3_chapter_template) in the name box and click ok. Whenever you open a file that uses an
older version of that template, you'll be prompted to update it to the latest version. Just click
yes when prompted and save the doc.

We're doing the work on our PCs at the moment. Don't know if that will change or not with a CMS.
You're workspace is actually the chapter itself. The change tracking feature helps others to see
what you've done on it. For the moment, if you have comments about a specific part of the chapter,
I would insert comments in the chapter itself unless there is something that you want to discuss
on the mailing list. The Getting Started Guide files have a link to a development page for each
chapter. This can be for anything you want others to know about what you've done or what needs to
be done on the chapter. The dev pages for the Writer Guide haven't been created yet.

Once the chapter .odt file is in the right place, I can turn on change tracking (and versioning?)
and make the changes; I've gotten the Getting Started with Writer chapter for reference, and I'm
assuming that any screenshots used there that are relevant in the Tables chapter are in the zip
file. Might I need any others, and if so, how should I go about acquiring them? (Presumably using
Paint on a print-screen image is not sufficient!) Is there some definitive list of the
differences between the currently-described features and operation, and new ones LibO has, or is
this a matter of trying the capabilities in LibO?

Yes I'd use change tracking, but versioning is not needed. Right now none of the screenshots in
chapter 9 are in the zip file. I've been creating them as I went along. There are some in there
that can be used for ch. 1 and 2 of the Writer Guide as some of the material in the Getting
Started Guide is repeated in those chapters. So for the ones you want to update, you'll have to
create them. Keep in mind that you are free to just edit the text if that's all you want to do. I
use Greenshot [1] and Gadwin PrintScreen [2] on Windows (don't know if there is a Linux version of
those) to take the screenshots and GIMP [3] (there is a Linux version) to do editing if needed.
You're right, lol, Paint would not be the best choice. :) As for keeping up with new features and
changes, the developers have been creating a list of changes and post it weekly on the development
mailing list [4].
Eventually, I'll also need to know how to put the file where it can be reviewed (if it doesn't
just stay where it is, with the appropriate control table update to show it's ready). And if
something is supposed to be done in the control table's Document Development column, and the
associated file (which is apparently a kind of note holder for communication with the team), who
sets that up, where, and how is it updated?

Sorry if all this is really obvious -- but the first time is always the
hardest, right?

Yes it is. It took me a while to get the hang of it too, so learning is allowed
:)

Once you've made changes to a chapter and want to upload it to the wiki, go to the docs dev page
[5], sign in to the wiki and click the upload file link on the left of the page. Click the Browse
button and select the file you've been working on. I usually select Documentation and EN for
categories and CC, LGPL and MPL for the license. Then click Upload file. You'll see it at the top
of the revision list once the upload is complete. :)

When you download a file and edit it, be sure to leave the filename as is. That way when it's
uploaded again the file history can be tracked and reverted if necessary. Other pages link to the
filenames as well so it prevents having to update the links every time a new version is uploaded.

hth,
Ron

[1] http://sourceforge.net/projects/greenshot/
[2] http://www.gadwin.com/printscreen/ (version 4.5 is

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Edited Writer Guide Chapter 1

2011-01-09 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/9/2011 6:20 AM, Hal Parker wrote:

I have just finished editing Writer Guide Chapter 1. I updated the template
and replaced many of the screenshots, mostly using images from Ron's zip
file or from the Getting Started guide. I put the replacement file on both
the Alfresco site and the wiki. Hope I did the Alfresco thing correctly!

Hal


There was a change to the Tip/Note/Caution tables, too, as I noticed in looking at the Getting 
Started with Writer chapter and working on Chapter 9 of the Writer Guide. All have the line color 
changed to Gray 40%, and a background color in cell A1: Tip is Chart 6, Note is Green 4, Caution is 
Chart 3. I didn't notice any other such housekeeeping-type changes -- are there any?


About the status in the control table Feedback column -- as I understand it that stays at NO while 
we have the chapter checked out and have not yet replaced the wiki file, goes to BACK if we replace 
the wiki file and no longer have it checked out, but know it is not done, and goes to YES when we 
think it's ready for proofreading. Is that right? If a chapter is checked out again for editing 
while in BACK status, does it go to NO again, or is the ID in the Checkout column enough?


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Edited Writer Guide Chapter 1

2011-01-09 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/9/2011 3:07 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Hal Parker  wrote:


On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Barbara Duprey  wrote:


On 1/9/2011 6:20 AM, Hal Parker wrote:


I have just finished editing Writer Guide Chapter 1. I updated the
template
and replaced many of the screenshots, mostly using images from Ron's zip
file or from the Getting Started guide. I put the replacement file on
both
the Alfresco site and the wiki. Hope I did the Alfresco thing correctly!


There was a change to the Tip/Note/Caution tables, too, as I noticed in
looking at the Getting Started with Writer chapter and working on Chapter 9
of the Writer Guide. All have the line color changed to Gray 40%, and a
background color in cell A1: Tip is Chart 6, Note is Green 4, Caution is
Chart 3. I didn't notice any other such housekeeeping-type changes -- are
there any?


Thanks for the reminder about the Tip/Note/Caution tables. I forgot them;
too focused on the figures. I'll go back into the Writer Guide chapter and
update those tables. I've checked out the file again in both Alfresco and
the wiki.

Given my memory, we'd best wait for Ron to remind us of any other changes
which are not applied by the template.


I just remembered another change. The OOo chapters use this style for
referring to other chapters:
"Chapter X (Title of chapter)" -- Ron has changed them to "Chapter X, Title
of chapter" -- without the quotes, of course.

Hal


Thanks, Hal.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Edited Writer Guide Chapter 1

2011-01-09 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/9/2011 3:22 PM, Ron Faile wrote:

On 1/9/2011 1:26 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:
There was a change to the Tip/Note/Caution tables, too, as I noticed in looking at the Getting
Started with Writer chapter and working on Chapter 9 of the Writer Guide. All have the line color
changed to Gray 40%, and a background color in cell A1: Tip is Chart 6, Note is Green 4, Caution
is Chart 3. I didn't notice any other such housekeeeping-type changes -- are there any?

About the status in the control table Feedback column -- as I understand it that stays at NO
while we have the chapter checked out and have not yet replaced the wiki file, goes to BACK if we
replace the wiki file and no longer have it checked out, but know it is not done, and goes to YES
when we think it's ready for proofreading. Is that right? If a chapter is checked out again for
editing while in BACK status, does it go to NO again, or is the ID in the Checkout column enough?

Yes, the > symbol changed to an arrow in menu paths. Once you do the find and replace, you'll need
to select each arrow and change the character style to OOoComputer Code. This changes the font to
Liberation Mono and makes the arrow centered. There was not a centered arrow in Liberation Sans.

The only Liberation font that shows up in my font selection list is Liberation Sans Narrow, although
all the text still has the Liberation Sans font. I should probably install both of these fonts, but
where should I get them?

The formatting for tables has changed.

Borders horizontal only, below rows only, except above heading; heading row background gray 10%. No
change to line color/width. Right?

You'll need to check the links. Some go to the OOo site. For example the extensions link in Ch. 1
of the Writer Guide, the new link is in Ch. 1 of Getting Started.

You're right in you're latest email, the chapter title references have changed
slightly.

One thing that I'm not sure of at the moment is the discussion that's going on about doing
screenshots under windows. From what they are saying, the screenshots may have to be done under
Linux. So for the moment, you might want to hold off on doing much work on those until there is a
clearer answer on how to move forward. I don't want us to do a bunch of work that will have to be
changed. Maybe someone else on the lists can help.

The status for the Feedback column will stay No until the chapter is ready to move to the Proofing
stage. Only if it gets to Proofing and someone sees something that needs to be changed does it
need the Back status. When you check something out, you don't need to change the status of the
Feedback, Proofing or Publish until you're done with that part of the work or have reviewed it and
noticed that it either needed more work or agree that it is ready to be published. If it's checked
out again for more editing after in Back status, you're ID is enough. You don't really need to
change the status until you're ready for it to go to Proofing again.

Ron

Thanks for the clarification.

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Dialog or dialog box?

2011-01-09 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/9/2011 8:22 PM, Ron Faile wrote:

On 1/9/2011 7:43 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

Are we using the term "dialog" or "dialog box"? The OOo books vary in usage:
Getting Started and Calc (and maybe Draw; I didn't check) use "dialog" while
the Writer Guide uses "dialog box".

The LibreOffice options use the term "dialog" for some of the options. I
haven't checked the help, but I think it also uses "dialog".

If we settle on "dialog", I will amend the Writer Guide chapters as I go
through them doing other things.

FWIW, I personally prefer "dialog" but the important thing is to be
consistent, when we can. I suspect other variations in terminology in both
the program and the user guides, left over from OOo.

Hal

The authors at OOo are in the process of changing their docs from dialog box to dialog. I agree
with you and think we should go with dialog. It sound better to me. The online help uses dialog as
well. That would be a good list to have of some typical conventions. Maybe we can find a place on
the wiki and list them.

Ron

Another term is "main menu" vs "menu bar" -- both were used in the chapter I'm working on. And then
there's "tab" vs "page" for the tabbed dialogs.

It would also be good to have a list of the paragraph and character style usage. Character styles,
in particular, were really inconsistent in what I saw. Dialogs, options, and so on really should be
consistent in their tagging across the whole document. No time to work on that now, I'm sure, but

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Edited Writer Guide Chapter 1

2011-01-10 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/9/2011 8:01 PM, Ron Faile wrote:

On 1/9/2011 7:04 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:
The only Liberation font that shows up in my font selection list is Liberation Sans Narrow, 
although all the text still has the Liberation Sans font. I should probably install both of these 
fonts, but where should I get them?



The download link is here:
https://fedorahosted.org/liberation-fonts/
filename:
liberation-fonts-ttf-1.06.0.20100721.tar.gz 
<https://fedorahosted.org/releases/l/i/liberation-fonts/liberation-fonts-ttf-1.06.0.20100721.tar.gz>


Got the fonts (eventually!). Thanks.




The formatting for tables has changed.


Borders horizontal only, below rows only, except above heading; heading row background gray 10%. 
No change to line color/width. Right?



Right.

Thanks for the clarification.

Ron



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Dialog or dialog box?

2011-01-10 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/9/2011 8:57 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 1/9/2011 8:22 PM, Ron Faile wrote:

On 1/9/2011 7:43 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

Are we using the term "dialog" or "dialog box"? The OOo books vary in usage:
Getting Started and Calc (and maybe Draw; I didn't check) use "dialog" while
the Writer Guide uses "dialog box".

The LibreOffice options use the term "dialog" for some of the options. I
haven't checked the help, but I think it also uses "dialog".

If we settle on "dialog", I will amend the Writer Guide chapters as I go
through them doing other things.

FWIW, I personally prefer "dialog" but the important thing is to be
consistent, when we can. I suspect other variations in terminology in both
the program and the user guides, left over from OOo.

Hal

The authors at OOo are in the process of changing their docs from dialog box to dialog. I agree
with you and think we should go with dialog. It sound better to me. The online help uses dialog
as well. That would be a good list to have of some typical conventions. Maybe we can find a place
on the wiki and list them.

Ron

Another term is "main menu" vs "menu bar" -- both were used in the chapter I'm working on. And
then there's "tab" vs "page" for the tabbed dialogs.

It would also be good to have a list of the paragraph and character style usage. Character styles,
in particular, were really inconsistent in what I saw. Dialogs, options, and so on really should
be consistent in their tagging across the whole document. No time to work on that now, I'm sure,
but

Another term is context menu vs pop-up menu for what happens after a right-click. I could start
collecting all this stuff for a style guide, if there isn't one already. Any interest?

[libreoffice-documentation] Hyperlinks

2011-01-10 Thread Barbara Duprey

Is some part of the process going to make active hyperlinks to other chapters, and into a glossary? 
(I noticed an apparent link for "heading" in Chapter 9 of the Writer Guide, for example). Or should 
we be doing that somehow?


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[libreoffice-documentation] Writer Guide Chapter 9 Edited

2011-01-10 Thread Barbara Duprey


I've returned this chapter after editing, hope this is what you're looking for.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Hyperlinks

2011-01-10 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/10/2011 6:34 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Barbara Duprey  wrote:


Is some part of the process going to make active hyperlinks to other
chapters, and into a glossary? (I noticed an apparent link for "heading" in
Chapter 9 of the Writer Guide, for example). Or should we be doing that
somehow?


Not at this time. Having those work for the user depends on conditions we
can't control, like whether they are connected to the Internet. Also they
are messy to set up until all the files are in place and relatively stable.
Even doing them on a wiki is much too fiddly and time-consuming IMO. All of
this could change later, of course.

If there is an apparent link in a file, it's not intentional and should not
be there.

Hal


My "apparent links" turned out to be index entries! Figured it out after looking at the to-do list 
for the rebranding, I haven't worked with these before. Not quite sure why some of them have 
selected text and others just an indicator that an entry exists, was happy to see the forward/back 
from the editing dialog.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] pop-up is generic

2011-01-10 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/10/2011 8:22 PM, Jean Weber wrote:

Seriously, shouldn't you get the glossary from Sophie and start with
that? It will probably contain most of the terms that the team needs,
without lengthy debate.
Jean

I agree. What I was thinking about is a compilation not just of the terms, but also of what
paragraph style (fairly obvious as a rule) and especially what character style (sometimes not so
obvious) to use for each of the kinds of things we talk about in the guides. That probably exists
someplace, too, right? I definitely saw some things that were inconsistent and/or clearly wrong,
like OOoMenuPath being used instead of OOoStrongEmphasis, or dialog names using different character
styles in different places. But that kind of correction is very time-consuming, and probably beyond
the scope of this effort right now. It would help for later reference, though.

PS -- Sure glad the floods didn't get you!

On Tuesday, January 11, 2011, David Nelson wrote:

Hi, :-)

The term I have always used in my own work is "context-sensitive menu".

Similarly, I prefer "dialog box" rather than just "dialog"

But Hal mentioned an idea that we could compile a terminology glossary
for the team, so that we all stay on the same track
terminology-wise... Interested in "getting involved", Tom? ;-)

David Nelson

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Hyperlinks

2011-01-11 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/11/2011 3:40 AM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Barbara Duprey  wrote:


On 1/10/2011 6:34 PM, Hal Parker wrote:


On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Barbara Duprey   wrote:

  Is some part of the process going to make active hyperlinks to other

chapters, and into a glossary? (I noticed an apparent link for "heading"
in
Chapter 9 of the Writer Guide, for example). Or should we be doing that
somehow?

  Not at this time. Having those work for the user depends on conditions

we
can't control, like whether they are connected to the Internet. Also they
are messy to set up until all the files are in place and relatively
stable.
Even doing them on a wiki is much too fiddly and time-consuming IMO. All
of
this could change later, of course.

If there is an apparent link in a file, it's not intentional and should
not
be there.

Hal


My "apparent links" turned out to be index entries! Figured it out after
looking at the to-do list for the rebranding, I haven't worked with these
before. Not quite sure why some of them have selected text and others just
an indicator that an entry exists, was happy to see the forward/back from
the editing dialog.



If the selected text becomes the index entry, the text retains a gray
background. If text is selected but then changed in some way for use in the
index entry (for example, to change an upper case letter to lower case),
then the index entry is marked by a small indicator. One can also add index
entries without selecting anything first; in this case, again the entry is
marked by a small indicator.

Hal

Thanks for the explanation, Hal!

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] pop-up is generic

2011-01-11 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/10/2011 9:54 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:

On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 21:31 -0600, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 1/10/2011 8:22 PM, Jean Weber wrote:

Seriously, shouldn't you get the glossary from Sophie and start with
that? It will probably contain most of the terms that the team needs,
without lengthy debate.
Jean

Look in the template. They should be described there, although I don't
think it contains a definitive list, and a summary from the POV of "For
item x, use style XX" to supplement "Use style XX for items X, Y, Z"
info in the template would be very useful. (That's been on my to-do list
for OOo for years.)

Ah! Never thought to look there -- the template in its older form had already been applied, just
reapplied it to pick up changes. Good stuff! Maybe when we're done with the rebranding I can take
some time for the reversed POV summary. I expect there might also be some additional character
styles that would help by being obviously intended when referring to parts of the UI, for example.

I definitely saw some things that were inconsistent and/or clearly wrong,

Yes, especially in some of the chapters (like #9) that haven't been
properly worked on for several iterations. And no one at OOo has ever
had the leisure to do a thorough consistency fix-up.

I went after it pretty thoroughly for content just now, but gave up on the consistency aspect due to
the time involved. This is the kind of thing I'm perfectly willing to do, though.

like OOoMenuPath being used instead of OOoStrongEmphasis, or dialog names using
different character
styles in different places. But that kind of correction is very time-consuming,
and probably beyond
the scope of this effort right now. It would help for later reference, though.

PS -- Sure glad the floods didn't get you!

We are fortunate this time, but our turn could still come, if/when a
cyclone comes through the north in the next 2-3 months.

--Jean

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] pop-up is generic

2011-01-11 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/10/2011 11:48 PM, Sophie Gautier wrote:

Hi Jean, Barbara,
On 11/01/2011 06:31, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 1/10/2011 8:22 PM, Jean Weber wrote:

Seriously, shouldn't you get the glossary from Sophie and start with
that? It will probably contain most of the terms that the team needs,
without lengthy debate.
Jean

I agree. What I was thinking about is a compilation not just of the
terms, but also of what paragraph style (fairly obvious as a rule) and
especially what character style (sometimes not so obvious) to use for
each of the kinds of things we talk about in the guides. That probably
exists someplace, too, right? I definitely saw some things that were
inconsistent and/or clearly wrong, like OOoMenuPath being used instead
of OOoStrongEmphasis, or dialog names using different character styles
in different places. But that kind of correction is very time-consuming,
and probably beyond the scope of this effort right now. It would help
for later reference, though.

So we were using an online tool called SunGloss to maintain this glossaries for several languages.
It was a great tool, but Oracle has decided to shut it down and use OpenCTI instead wich is a
translation tool, so it's not the same usage unfortunately. I'm still thinking of a tool to
maintain our glossaries, but their is currently more important tasks for me.

Here you'll find the last export I've made from SunGloss for the French
language:
http://fr.openoffice.org/files/documents/67/4226/export_20080417_en-US_fr-FR.zip

This file contains all the words used in the UI with the French translation and comments about
this translation and also the state of the word (approved or pending). So there is too much
information but at least you get the list of word. Also it's from 2008, so some new words are
missing, I can provide you with a list of them later (I maintain another glossary now).
To open the file, you should change the extension to .csv and open it as a tab separated value
file with Calc, then you'll be able to filter the file easily.

Thanks, Sophie. Definitely a huge number of items (15,887) there! It doesn't look as if it will
resolve the "which to use" issue, though. Apparently it includes anything that has been used, so
both "dialog" and "dialog box" are there, as are "menu bar" and "main menu" (for example). "Context
menu" isn't there, though "contextual menu" is -- so that seems to have been a global change. And
there are a slew of "pop-up" related terms! So absence of a term is meaningful, but presence really
isn't.

Hope this help to begin, but I think the more useful really would be to have an online tool
accessible to each author to add words and comments, even for style, where there is the ability to
make some export for offline work.

Right.

PS -- Sure glad the floods didn't get you!

yes, sure :)

Kind regards
Sohie

[libreoffice-documentation] Maximizing Value for Time Spent

2011-01-11 Thread Barbara Duprey

Which would be better right now -- concentrating on the basically mechanical rebranding activities 
for a chapter, or working on both those and the content? Obviously the second takes longer for 
turnaround but (at least in theory) makes the chapter better in addition to rebranding. I took the 
first approach on Chapter 9, but would it be better to just get all of the chapters rebranded for 
now and come back for content later?


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] pop-up is generic

2011-01-11 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/11/2011 11:29 AM, Sophie Gautier wrote:

On 11/01/2011 19:41, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 1/10/2011 11:48 PM, Sophie Gautier wrote:

Hi Jean, Barbara,
On 11/01/2011 06:31, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 1/10/2011 8:22 PM, Jean Weber wrote:

Seriously, shouldn't you get the glossary from Sophie and start with
that? It will probably contain most of the terms that the team needs,
without lengthy debate.
Jean

I agree. What I was thinking about is a compilation not just of the
terms, but also of what paragraph style (fairly obvious as a rule) and
especially what character style (sometimes not so obvious) to use for
each of the kinds of things we talk about in the guides. That probably
exists someplace, too, right? I definitely saw some things that were
inconsistent and/or clearly wrong, like OOoMenuPath being used instead
of OOoStrongEmphasis, or dialog names using different character styles
in different places. But that kind of correction is very time-consuming,
and probably beyond the scope of this effort right now. It would help
for later reference, though.

So we were using an online tool called SunGloss to maintain this
glossaries for several languages. It was a great tool, but Oracle has
decided to shut it down and use OpenCTI instead wich is a translation
tool, so it's not the same usage unfortunately. I'm still thinking of
a tool to maintain our glossaries, but their is currently more
important tasks for me.

Here you'll find the last export I've made from SunGloss for the
French language:
http://fr.openoffice.org/files/documents/67/4226/export_20080417_en-US_fr-FR.zip

This file contains all the words used in the UI with the French
translation and comments about this translation and also the state of
the word (approved or pending). So there is too much information but
at least you get the list of word. Also it's from 2008, so some new
words are missing, I can provide you with a list of them later (I
maintain another glossary now).
To open the file, you should change the extension to .csv and open it
as a tab separated value file with Calc, then you'll be able to filter
the file easily.

Thanks, Sophie. Definitely a huge number of items (15,887) there! It
doesn't look as if it will resolve the "which to use" issue, though.
Apparently it includes anything that has been used, so both "dialog" and
"dialog box" are there, as are "menu bar" and "main menu" (for example).
"Context menu" isn't there, though "contextual menu" is -- so that seems
to have been a global change. And there are a slew of "pop-up" related
terms! So absence of a term is meaningful, but presence really isn't.

Yes, it doesn't help you yet, you need to update it as time being and really
adapt it to your needs.
But I can help here by searching (greping) for the occurrences of the words in the help files
quiet quickly.
Would you be able to send me a list of terms you need to check for consistency? I'll search for
them and will send them back to you. If you don't have a list, but just terms from time to time,
no problem, I'll be able to check for the any way.

Right now, there's no list. Thanks for the offer to grep the terms, that should
be a real help.

- So for menu bar/main menu: Main menu is appearing only once in the help "Note for Mac OS X
users: The Help mentions the menu path Tools - Options at numerous places. Replace this path with
%PRODUCTNAME - Preferences on your Mac OS X main menu"

This is menu bar that is used instead.

OK, thanks. Sounds as if we should change that as we go. And we also seem agreed on "dialog" rather
than "dialog box" -- right?

- For contextual menu/context menu: Contextual menu doesn't exist in the help file. Context menu
is the one that is used.

Interesting -- the translation material seems to go the other way. How about "context menu" vs
"pop-up menu" or "pop-up window menu" or "pop-up window" or the other variants on that, with and
without the hyphen?

This grep is done on OOoDEV_m84 help files.

Kind regards
Sophie

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] pop-up is generic

2011-01-12 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/12/2011 4:32 AM, Sophie Gautier wrote:

Hi Barbara,
On 12/01/2011 01:42, Barbara Duprey wrote:
[...]

OK, thanks. Sounds as if we should change that as we go. And we also
seem agreed on "dialog" rather than "dialog box" -- right?

That is what is used in the help files.

- For contextual menu/context menu: Contextual menu doesn't exist in
the help file. Context menu is the one that is used.

Interesting -- the translation material seems to go the other way.

If you speak about French translation in the glossary, I usually work with Gnome, Mozilla, Debian
and KDE groups, so there is sometime an harmonization between their usage and mine. Gnome/KDE and
OOo have put a shared glossary on line grouping all the words we use for the French products.

I was talking about the file you pointed to, and what I saw in the Calc version. The term "context
menu" is not there, but "contextual menu" is. (Only looked at the English column.)

How

about "context menu" vs "pop-up menu" or "pop-up window menu" or "pop-up
window" or the other variants on that, with and without the hyphen?

pop-up menu: used twice
helpcontent2-fr/smath/01.po:"choices from this pop-up menu to access the helpcontent2-fr/shared/04.po:msgid "Opens the list of the control field currently selected in a
dialog. These shortcut keys apply not only to combo boxes but also to icon buttons with pop-up
menus. Close an opened list by pressing the Escape key."

pop-up window menu: not used
pop-up window: not used
the variant of the three without the hyphen is not used.

Kind regards
Sophie

OK, it seems that "context menu" is the preferred choice. Thanks!

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] pop-up is generic

2011-01-12 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/12/2011 1:22 PM, Gary Schnabl wrote:

On 1/12/2011 1:14 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

OK, it seems that "context menu" is the preferred choice. Thanks!

Sometime around twenty years ago, Microsoft and Apple employed differing forms--context versus
contextual--in their documentation. I forgot which one used which. Other developers typically
chose the form of the two forms based upon the O/S their apps used. IOW, back then it was a PC/Mac
sort of thing.

Doing some pro bono (they gave me expensive embedded-microcontroller firmware-development apps to
use for free) technical-editing work for Motorola in the very late 1990s/early 2000s, I used each
form, depending upon which O/S the particular IDE apps used.

So, another consideration is to employ the term based upon the particular O/S hosting the office
suite.

Gary

I think the intent is for the documentation (embedded help, online, PDFs, published) to be as
platform-neutral as possible, and as consistent with each other as possible in the terminology used.
Sophie is kindly doing greps on the embedded help so we can try to do that. Always interesting to
get the backstory, though! I don't even remember now what terms were used in the IBM product I was
working on embedded help for (back in 1996, in one of my last actual paid activities).

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] pop-up is generic

2011-01-13 Thread Barbara Duprey

I'd definitely be glad to capture it somewhere. It seems like an extension of the "to-do" list 
that's on the wiki -- is that on Alfresco, too? (I haven't gotten into Alfresco at all yet, sorry -- 
I've been working from the wiki.)


On 1/12/2011 8:38 PM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi, :-)

It would be interesting to see how Sophie's offered content could be
incorporated into the Alfresco site, to make it a reference resource
available to docs workers. Would you have time for and feel like
investigating that, by any chance, Barbara?

David Nelson

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 04:35, Barbara Duprey  wrote:

I think the intent is for the documentation (embedded help, online, PDFs,
published) to be as platform-neutral as possible, and as consistent with
each other as possible in the terminology used. Sophie is kindly doing greps
on the embedded help so we can try to do that. Always interesting to get the
backstory, though! I don't even remember now what terms were used in the IBM
product I was working on embedded help for (back in 1996, in one of my last
actual paid activities).


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] xkcd: Good Code

2011-01-13 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/12/2011 7:31 PM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:

This applies to documentation as well. Cheers, Jean

http://xkcd.com/844/


Love it! Thanks for the pointer, looks like a fun site.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] pop-up is generic

2011-01-13 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/13/2011 10:20 AM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi, :-)

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 00:08, Barbara Duprey  wrote:

I'd definitely be glad to capture it somewhere. It seems like an extension
of the "to-do" list that's on the wiki -- is that on Alfresco, too? (I
haven't gotten into Alfresco at all yet, sorry -- I've been working from the
wiki.)

It's becoming well worth getting into it... we're about 60% of the way
to a workflow, and the rest should be implemented quickly... it will
be much more organized and simple to manage on Alfresco... ;-)

Would you feel like giving it another trial...?

David Nelson


"Another"? Hadn't even started yet -- but OK, sure.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[libreoffice-documentation] Terminology and Styles

2011-01-15 Thread Barbara Duprey

I put together a document that I hope can be useful -- maybe somebody can tell me where it should go 
(if anywhere) and how to get it there for collaboration. Right now, it's a document based on the 
chapter template.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Terminology and Styles

2011-01-15 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/15/2011 12:41 PM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi Barbara, :-)

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 01:44, Barbara Duprey  wrote:

I put together a document that I hope can be useful -- maybe somebody can
tell me where it should go (if anywhere) and how to get it there for
collaboration. Right now, it's a document based on the chapter template.

Can I invite you to log into your account on the Alfresco site and put
it there right now? We can use this as a way to get you up and running
collaborating on Alfresco, if you're willing?

Then we can review and refine it as a task between several team members...?

David Nelson


I'd be glad to -- but I must be missing something very basic. When I logged in and looked around, I 
saw no project-specific things at all -- just what came preinstalled by Alfresco. "My" space was 
empty, and the Navigation tree didn't show anything that looked like ours.


BTW, this list (and presumably the others) strips attachments. The OOo lists always seem to allow 
ODF filetypes to be posted; is there any chance of a policy change here? (Probably belongs on the 
website list, but I'm not subscribed there, at least, not yet.)


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Terminology and Styles

2011-01-15 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/15/2011 1:39 PM, Jeremy Cartwright wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:22:57 -0600
Barbara Duprey  wrote:


I'd be glad to -- but I must be missing something very basic. When I
logged in and looked around, I saw no project-specific things at all
-- just what came preinstalled by Alfresco. "My" space was empty, and
the Navigation tree didn't show anything that looked like ours.


The current LO workspace is available by clicking on 'Company Home' and
then 'LibreOffice Documentation'. Are those choices available to you?

-- jdc


Yes, I'm OK now, thanks. I had interpreted "Company" as Alfresco rather than LibreOffice! I didn't 
look around too long, and I apologize for not having followed all the Alfrresco threads, I'm sure 
this was already covered.


I put the document into the Drafts folder, hope that's the right one.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[libreoffice-documentation] Dialog/Dialog Box

2011-01-15 Thread Barbara Duprey

I started making this change (in Chapter) but backed it out -- right now it's apparently 
consistently used and appears in index entries, so having a mix across the document would be 
apparent and confusing. Agree?


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[libreoffice-documentation] Another grep - Drop-down

2011-01-16 Thread Barbara Duprey


OK, which is used in the help -- drop-down, drop-down list, drop-down menu, ?

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Another grep - Drop-down

2011-01-16 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/16/2011 12:05 PM, Sophie Gautier wrote:

Hi Barbara,

On 16/01/2011 20:37, Barbara Duprey wrote:

OK, which is used in the help -- drop-down, drop-down list, drop-down
menu, ?

- drop-down alone is not used
- drop-down menu is used twice
- drop-down icon is used once
- drop-down list(s) is used several times.

Kind regards
Sophie


Thanks, Sophie! Hmm -- is there another term used instead? "Several" doesn't seem like enough to 
cover this, as often as such things are used. "Selection list" or "selection menu" maybe? Or "combo 
box" as it's called in the form control toolbar? A quick check showed that at least sometimes, there 
is no term used at all, just directions to "select the ..." without mentioning the control type. So 
maybe that should be preferred?


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] unsubscribe

2011-01-17 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/17/2011 2:46 AM, Kurt Stahl wrote:

can you explain to me, why I got 85 mails today from your organisation? It is 
incredible!


Apparently, when you subscribed to the various lists you were unprepared for the volume of message 
traffic you would receive, and that's unfortunate. But to stop receiving the e-mails, you will have 
to retrace the same path you used in subscribing, this time using the word unsubscribe instead of 
the word subscribe. That is, you will need to unsubscribe any list you are currently receiving. The 
general format is listname+unsubscr...@libreoffice.org, where listname is, for example, 
documentation. This will need to be done from the same address used when you subscribed. If you 
still have the original subscription requests in your Sent folder (or the equivalent), that would be 
a good place to start.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Another grep - Drop-down

2011-01-20 Thread Barbara Duprey

Given the very small numbers of any of these phrases, my guess is that the whole idea of naming the 
control type is mostly being avoided. My personal choice would be to say something like "select xxx 
from the yyy list," where yyy is the name of the option. I agree it's not worth changing existing 
uses of "drop-down list" or "selection list" when they're there, though.


On 1/17/2011 5:41 AM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)

Ok, i have spotted the numbers
drop-down list = 6 or 7
selection list= 14

I still think we should aim to use "Drop-down list" because it makes more
intuitive sense to people that have not heard either term before.  However, i
still think there is no need to change whichever of those 2 is used in each
place.


Someone said there is a glossary or is that not quite built yet?  Could i help
build it?  Is there an easy link to it, if it exists?

Regards from
Tom :)






From: Sophie Gautier
To: documentation@libreoffice.org
Sent: Mon, 17 January, 2011 11:08:45
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Another grep - Drop-down

Hi Barbara,
On 16/01/2011 22:31, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 1/16/2011 12:05 PM, Sophie Gautier wrote:

Hi Barbara,

On 16/01/2011 20:37, Barbara Duprey wrote:

OK, which is used in the help -- drop-down, drop-down list, drop-down
menu, ?

- drop-down alone is not used
- drop-down menu is used twice
- drop-down icon is used once
- drop-down list(s) is used several times.

Kind regards
Sophie

Thanks, Sophie! Hmm -- is there another term used instead? "Several"
doesn't seem like enough to cover this, as often as such things are
used.

Yes, I was also surprised by the "not so many" occurrences of the term
(may 6 or 7).

   "Selection list" or "selection menu" maybe? Or "combo box" as it's

called in the form control toolbar? A quick check showed that at least
sometimes, there is no term used at all, just directions to "select the
..." without mentioning the control type. So maybe that should be
preferred?


- selection list is appearing 14 times
- selection menu is not used
- combo box is really dedicated to Form or Basic use.

Kind regards
Sophie




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[libreoffice-documentation] Box/Field

2011-01-21 Thread Barbara Duprey

I don't think this one can really be determined easily by grep, but I've found some things that 
indicate user entry in the xxx box, and others that use xxx field. I think the second is preferable, 
right?


By the way, I've now done Chapters 9 - 12 of the Writer Guide, and I'm working on Chapter 13. Is the 
plan to wait until they're all done before the proofreading begins? And is anything happening about 
setting up the Calc Guide? And with three structures going (the wiki, Alfresco, and ODFauthors), 
we'll need to be careful about where the "real" work is being done!


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Box/Field

2011-01-21 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/21/2011 4:41 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

I don't think this one can really be determined easily by grep, but I've
found some things that indicate user entry in the xxx box, and others that
use xxx field. I think the second is preferable, right?

"Field" is a term that is also used for a specific type of thing (a variable
or reference to data), which is not a box to type in. Therefore I think it's
better to reserve the term "field" for the specific instance and use "box"
for user entry.

OK, thanks.

By the way, I've now done Chapters 9 - 12 of the Writer Guide, and I'm
working on Chapter 13. Is the plan to wait until they're all done before the
proofreading begins? And is anything happening about setting up the Calc
Guide? And with three structures going (the wiki, Alfresco, and ODFauthors),
we'll need to be careful about where the "real" work is being done!

Where are you putting the docs you're working on? Are they in Alfresco as
well as on the wiki? I've been away for awhile and have not caught up with
what's going on or where the latest files are.

I'm using the control table on the wiki, downloading from there, working on the chapters, then
uploading them again and updating the control table. I really haven't gone into Alfresco much, I
haven't been duplicating them there because I have a pretty much knee-jerk dislike of having
multiple copies of the "same" thing -- I saw that cause too much havoc during my working career!

Is anyone actually using ODFAuthors for LibreOffice docs? Sounds like
Andreas might be, but is anyone else?

Hal

Not that I know of, yet. As I understand it, we'll be moving over strictly to Alfresco at some
point, but for now we're just playing there and using the wiki for the official work.

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Alfresco Alfresco Alfresco

2011-01-22 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/22/2011 11:47 AM, Jeremy Cartwright wrote:

All,

The Alfresco site has now been tidied up. The easiest way to navigate
is choosing `Company Home/LibreOffice Documentation/catalog`. There you
will find 7 directories for each of our books. Within each of those
directories you will find 3 sub-directories - past, planned and working.

Samphan's workflow has been replicated to the 'working' sub-directories
of each of our books.

All of the chapters which were not checked out from the wiki have been
uploaded to their respective directory on alfresco.

I've also added a directory named 'various' which holds various files
(Ms. Duprey's 'Terminology and Styles' now resides there, for instance).

Thanks, glad you found a home for it. Needs some updating from recent e-mail discussions, though.
I'm also wondering if the reworked template ("LO" for "OOo") might include the additional character
styles I indicated could be helpful -- has anybody else looked at that? Too bad the style names will
have the capital-O capital-whatever combination, though, I think "Lib" would have been more
readable. Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, that was a big effort, I'm sure, and will be much
appreciated.

@Ron, You have chapter 14 and Appendix A of the Getting Started
Guide checked out in the wiki. When you are done editing can you please
upload to alfresco?

@Barbara, You have chapter 13 of the Writer Guide checked out of the
wiki. When you are done editing can you please upload to alfresco?

Sure. Thanks for doing the sync to the current status!

@David, Do I have permission to massively rewrite
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/Development to erase
our matrices and point to the alfresco site?

@All, Constructive criticism heartily welcomed. Documentation to aid in
getting one's feet wet with alfresco is forthcoming.

Does this include some content for the very intriguing (but empty) Workflow stuff? All I could
locate currently is the .png file taken from the wiki (or its source), and a toolbar-ish thing with
various actions that can be taken.

-- jdc

[libreoffice-documentation] Managing Alfresco Files

2011-01-23 Thread Barbara Duprey

I'm really embarrassed about this, but ... I went into Add Content while on the Writer-Working 
display, and uploaded Chapter 13. It apparently went somewhere, but I have no idea where! It belongs 
under Review with the other edited files, but I was never asked where to put it and I can't find it. 
What did I do wrong?


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Managing Alfresco Files

2011-01-23 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/23/2011 9:15 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:
I'm really embarrassed about this, but ... I went into Add Content while on the Writer-Working 
display, and uploaded Chapter 13. It apparently went somewhere, but I have no idea where! It 
belongs under Review with the other edited files, but I was never asked where to put it and I 
can't find it. What did I do wrong?


OK, I went to the Review content display and tried from there, apparently successfully -- still 
don't know where the first upload went, but the file now appears in the Review content.


So I clicked on the next file I wanted to work on, Chapter 14. There was an action bar at the right 
with the first two being Edit Offline and Check Out. Since I wanted to check it out to edit offline, 
I selected the first action and the file downloaded. But now there appears to be no way to get back 
to the toolbar that includes the Check Out action. Sigh.


Sorry to be causing trouble here, but if you'll bear with me for a while, I'm 
sure I'm trainable!

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Managing Alfresco Files

2011-01-24 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/24/2011 6:49 AM, Jeremy Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:15:15 -0600
Barbara Duprey  wrote:


I'm really embarrassed about this, but ... I went into Add Content
while on the Writer-Working display, and uploaded Chapter 13. It
apparently went somewhere, but I have no idea where! It belongs under
Review with the other edited files, but I was never asked where to
put it and I can't find it. What did I do wrong?


I see it! It was added to Writer-Working. It is in the content items
of that space, never being placed in the workflow sub-spaces. My
thoughts are it needs to be deleted?


-- jdc


Yes, it's in the Review content now. where it belongs, so that copy is extra 
and should be deleted.

There's some documentation of the intended workflow happening, right? I promise I'll read it and 
avoid creating similar problems in the future!


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Managing Alfresco Files

2011-01-24 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/24/2011 10:51 AM, Jeremy Cartwright wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:51:02 +0100
Sigrid Carrera wrote:

Hi Karl-Heinz,

2011/1/24 Karl-Heinz Gödderz

Hi @all,

Barbara Duprey schrieb:

There's some documentation of the intended workflow happening,
right?

would someone be so kind and send a link where to find this?

This documentation does not exist yet. Someone (Jeremy?) is writing
this document right now.

Sigrid

Working now! If not today, then by tomorrow the first draft should be
ready for review. :D

-- jdc

Boy, do I ever need this! I finished updating Chapter 14, went into the Review content, and chose
Add Content. The upload appeared to succeed, but the chapter did not appear in the folder (after a
Reload). I went back to the Working level and saw two versions under Drafts, one saying {working
copy). What I think happened next is I selected the (working copy) and said Done editing. The Drafts
list then didn't show that copy any more, so I selected the active copy on the Drafts list and
selected Submit for review. Now the original version of the chapter is apparently what is in the
Review folder, and I can't seem to get my version in there at all. I can't upload because of the
duplicate name, and I don't dare "delete all previous versions"!

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Managing Alfresco Files

2011-01-24 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/24/2011 8:11 PM, Rogerio Luz Coelho wrote:

2011/1/24 Barbara Duprey

On 1/24/2011 10:51 AM, Jeremy Cartwright wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:51:02 +0100
Sigrid Carrera wrote:

Hi Karl-Heinz,

2011/1/24 Karl-Heinz Gödderz

Hi @all,

Barbara Duprey schrieb:

There's some documentation of the intended workflow happening,
right?

would someone be so kind and send a link where to find this?

This documentation does not exist yet. Someone (Jeremy?) is writing

this document right now.

Sigrid

Working now! If not today, then by tomorrow the first draft should be

ready for review. :D

-- jdc

Boy, do I ever need this! I finished updating Chapter 14, went into the
Review content, and chose Add Content. The upload appeared to succeed, but
the chapter did not appear in the folder (after a Reload). I went back to
the Working level and saw two versions under Drafts, one saying {working
copy). What I think happened next is I selected the (working copy) and said
Done editing. The Drafts list then didn't show that copy any more, so I
selected the active copy on the Drafts list and selected Submit for review.
Now the original version of the chapter is apparently what is in the Review
folder, and I can't seem to get my version in there at all. I can't upload
because of the duplicate name, and I don't dare "delete all previous
versions"!

Take it easy Barb ... we are all learning this stuff ... we'll get the hang
of it ...

;)

Rogerio

I'm not stressing about it, just somewhat embarrassed! Now I'm hesitant to check out another
chapter, because I'm not sure when I got off track before. Ah, well

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Alfresco Workflow Documentation

2011-01-25 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/25/2011 4:57 PM, Jeremy Cartwright wrote:

All;

Here is a link to the rough draft of a guide for LibreOffice's Alfresco
workflow. You might have to be logged in to Alfresco to follow it.

https://documentation.traduction.biz/alfresco/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/8118043c-c936-4d29-92a9-b0695f73fa99/0100ABC-LOAlfrescoBootCamp.odt


-- jdc


Thanks, Jeremy!

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Base documentation

2011-01-26 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/26/2011 3:43 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

I've started a new thread for this, in response to Alex Thurgood's comments
on Base docs.

My opinion FWIW is that Base related stuff is desperately needed, including
a full Base Guide. We've been rebranding the OOo user guides as an initial
set for LibreOffice, but the Base Guide has never been written. Three draft
chapters (badly in need of editing) exist, but that's all. One could build
on that, and the Base Gyude outline, or start from scratch. Of course, other
Base-related materials would be useful, too. IMO the "Getting Started with
Base" chapter is quite good, so we wouldn't want to duplicate that.

I personally don't have much database experience beyond the trivial, but I'm
good at testing, critiquing, and editing, revising... if only we can find
some database people to write an initial draft!

I appreciate that developing the Base portion of the website should probably
take priority over the much longer, more ambitious work needed on a Base
Guide.

Hal


I haven't looked for any Base tutorials, but if any exist that would be useful info. And there are 
certainly lots of other tutorials, it would be good to start some exploration about rebranding 
those, too.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] LibO Alfresco Bootcamp doc

2011-01-27 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 1/27/2011 5:12 PM, Jeremy Cartwright wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 08:08:29 +1000
Hal Parker wrote:

Jeremy, your bootcamp doc is extremely helpful. I haven't worked my
way through all of it yet, but I did have one comment/question. Under
"Review a Document", you said:

"Submitting to Review and then Reviewing the same document is
generally considered poor form and is not something LibreOffice
condones..."

If I have just submitted a chapter for review, but then realise that I
failed to make some changes that I am aware of. I would normally
check out the chapter, fix those errors, and then check it in again,
leaving it in the Review space. Is that appropriate? Perhaps that's
not considered "reviewing" since I don't pass it on to Proofing or
return it to Drafts?

Hal

Absolutely. My aim with that passage was to curtail pushing a doc
through the steps with only one set of eyes on it. I'll start a
conversation on it in Alfresco to reflect that the passage should be
rewritten to include

check out the chapter, fix those errors, and then check it in again,
leaving it in the Review space.

And thank you for pointing that out. That is just one of many things
that I think need extra input.

-- jdc

Thanks! That tells me how I can deal with the mixed-up chapter that ended up as the original instead
of my markup, and the chapters I did before we settled on things like context menu and menu bar.

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Writer Guide status / my role

2011-01-29 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/29/2011 2:43 AM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi Hal, :-)

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:38, Hal Parker  wrote:

The one thing I am definitely NOT doing is changing the borders and the row
colours in tables of data. Now that the OOo books have their tables in
black, white, and gray, I can't see the need for taking the time to change
them to a slightly different pattern of black, white, and gray.

IMHO, you're absolutely right. Surely it's not an important branding
issue. I don't think we have to get pedantic about things, especially
when it involves a lot of work of secondary priority.

This coming week, I'll start helping you out, and will post at that
time to liaise with you about where I should jump in.

David Nelson


What I've found is that the only step that takes significant amounts of time is checking the figures 
-- I get through all the other stuff in less than half an hour, and the majority of that is changing 
the >  signs to arrows in OOoComputerCode. So the changing of the tables, using context menu and 
menu bar, and so on is basically in the noise. I think we have to consider online users and not just 
printed copy users; the


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Writer Guide status / our role

2011-01-29 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/29/2011 2:51 AM, Hal Parker wrote:

I'm working on Chapter 4, Formatting Pages. I thought I'd be done by now,
but I've found what I think is a feature that's not in OOo: Format>  Title
Page, and I want to write it up.

Hal
You're right, the whole Title Page thing is new.  There seem to be some things missing, too -- I've 
submitted a couple of bugs, which turned up when I was trying to verify figures.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Writer Guide status / my role

2011-01-30 Thread Barbara Duprey




On 1/29/2011 10:26 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Barbara Duprey  wrote:


What I've found is that the only step that takes significant amounts of
time is checking the figures -- I get through all the other stuff in less
than half an hour, and the majority of that is changing the>   signs to
arrows in OOoComputerCode. So the changing of the tables, using context menu
and menu bar, and so on is basically in the noise.



We have approximately 60 chapters to do. If 15 minutes are spent per chapter
doing nonessential rebranding things, that's *15 hours* of time that could
have been better spent on something more productive.




I think we have to consider online users and not just printed copy users;
the



This sentence has been truncated. I'm wondering what you intended to say.

Hal


Yes, sorry -- hit send too soon! What I meant was that the colors are very noticeable in the PDFs 
and anything else other than grayscale-printed copies. Even with the grayscale, the difference 
between white and not-white shows up.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Another cyclone coming

2011-01-30 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/30/2011 5:40 AM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:

Today's cyclone (Anthony) is just far enough south to have missed
bringing us wind and rain, but the next one is likely to be a different
story. TC Yasi is due here around Thursday, and it's BIG.

--Jean


We'll cross our fingers for you and everybody there. Good luck!

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[libreoffice-documentation] Fixing screwy chapter

2011-01-30 Thread Barbara Duprey

In my earlier attempts to get Chapter 14 into Drafts, I apparently ended up with the original rather 
than my changed version there. As I read BootCamp, I should go to the Review folder, bring up 
Details for that chapter, and use Check Out (I have the edited copy on my own computer and don't 
want to download). Then, from the (Working Copy) in Review, Upload, then Check In, to get the edited 
version into Review as the active version for reviewers. Will I be able to fix the version number 
while I'm at it? Anyway, is this the correct process?


I can do something similar to edit the first couple of chapters for consistency with the later 
process, but maybe I should just leave them alone so somebody else can deal with them as desired.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[libreoffice-documentation] Comments in documents

2011-01-30 Thread Barbara Duprey

As I've worked on chapters, I've used a number of comments. The first is essentially my own 
checklist of things to do/done, which is also info for the reviewer to see if the right bases have 
been covered, but there are others relating to the need to replace figures, or questioning the best 
way to handle something. Would the comments be better handled in an Alfresco "Discussion" associated 
with the Review copy, rather than in the document?


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Fixing screwy chapter

2011-01-30 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/30/2011 3:36 PM, Jeremy Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:22:05 -0600
Barbara Duprey  wrote:


Then, from the (Working Copy) in Review, Upload, then Check In, to
get the edited

I believe that would be check in, then use the find document dialog in
that process to upload the new version.

Re: version numbers, those are controlled by the machine - with very
few opportunities for us to intervene. As with all technology, it can
be done. I believe in this instance it would require one to be as
comfortable juggling java objects as a clown in a Ringling
Brothers/Barnum&  Bailey extravaganza is juggling halibut.


-- jdc


Love the analogy! OK, guess we'll just have to live with the messed-up version numbers. I'll do this 
when I can log in, right now it's just "Connected to..." forever.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Fixing screwy chapter

2011-01-30 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/30/2011 4:50 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 1/30/2011 3:36 PM, Jeremy Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:22:05 -0600
Barbara Duprey  wrote:


Then, from the (Working Copy) in Review, Upload, then Check In, to
get the edited

I believe that would be check in, then use the find document dialog in
that process to upload the new version.

Re: version numbers, those are controlled by the machine - with very
few opportunities for us to intervene. As with all technology, it can
be done. I believe in this instance it would require one to be as
comfortable juggling java objects as a clown in a Ringling
Brothers/Barnum&  Bailey extravaganza is juggling halibut.


-- jdc


OK, my version is there now -- but it's only available through version history, the original version 
is still the one that appears directly in the folder. None of the actions seem to fit, since it 
isn't ready to be promoted. Will my version be the one the reviewer sees?
Love the analogy! OK, guess we'll just have to live with the messed-up version numbers. I'll do 
this when I can log in, right now it's just "Connected to..." forever.




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Fixing screwy chapter

2011-01-30 Thread Barbara Duprey




On 1/30/2011 9:05 PM, Jeremy Cartwright wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:54:06 -0600
Barbara Duprey  wrote:


OK, my version is there now -- but it's only available through
version history, the original version is still the one that appears
directly in the folder. None of the actions seem to fit, since it
isn't ready to be promoted. Will my version be the one the reviewer
sees?

Are we speaking of 0214WG3-WorkingWithFields.odt, located in
Writer/working/Review? If so, I see the current version is 1.3, and has
'Correcting workflow error; edited offline, this is unreviewed copy' in
the version notes. It that sounds like your doc, then you did it
perfectly.


-- jdc


Hooray! That's it.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Comments in documents

2011-01-31 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 1/30/2011 10:04 PM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi, :-)

My 2 cents would be that comments inside documents are more
immediately accessible to workers, and are more "portable" to wherever
the document goes. But Alfresco's discussion capability is more
appropriate if it's not just a conclusive comment but is likely to
turn into a conversation.

We're going to have to look into the question of setting-up an RSS
feed from Alfresco (and maybe a status page akin to what you have with
Pootle), so that work information is easily accessible outside the
site or without logging in. I'll follow up on that this week.

David Nelson


Thanks, guys! Quite a few of the comments are about screenshots needing replacement (I'm on Win7 
with no Linux access); some are about capability/feature problems where I couldn't successfully 
follow the procedures (I've submitted a couple of bugs, one more coming so far); others are more 
along the lines of "Is this worth changing?" (screenshots that incidentally use OOo, like the 
bibliography example that shows an OOo book, etc.).


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[libreoffice-documentation] What's Next?

2011-02-03 Thread Barbara Duprey

Now that all the Writer Guide chapters are in Review, should I start picking up chapters from the 
Calc Guide for similar activity, or what?


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[libreoffice-documentation] Template Use

2011-02-04 Thread Barbara Duprey

Do I need to use an extension to make the Calc chapters apply the LibO template? And I got the 
following message trying to Edit Offline for Chapter 9, no (Working Copy) was created, and the file 
was not locked, though the download succeeded:


  Please correct the errors below then click OK. Unable to check out Content Node due to system 
error:Transaction didn't commit: 0104 Failed to send email to:[documentationmailinglist]


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Template Use

2011-02-04 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 2/4/2011 4:27 PM, Jeremy Cartwright wrote:

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:42:27 -0600
Barbara Duprey  wrote:


Do I need to use an extension to make the Calc chapters apply the
LibO template?

Yes. TemplateChanger.oxt is its name. I've uploaded a copy to the
various space. To add, go to Tools/Extension Manager/Add and find the
downloaded .oxt file on your hard-drive. I think you need to restart.


-- jdc


Thanks, that did the trick.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Template Use

2011-02-04 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 2/4/2011 6:41 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 2/4/2011 4:27 PM, Jeremy Cartwright wrote:

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:42:27 -0600
Barbara Duprey  wrote:


Do I need to use an extension to make the Calc chapters apply the
LibO template?

Yes. TemplateChanger.oxt is its name. I've uploaded a copy to the
various space. To add, go to Tools/Extension Manager/Add and find the
downloaded .oxt file on your hard-drive. I think you need to restart.


-- jdc


Thanks, that did the trick.


BTW, any idea why I get that error trying to Edit Offline? That part about email is confusing. I'm 
making the changes to Chapter 9, but I can't lock the file.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Base documentation

2011-02-05 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 2/5/2011 9:49 AM, Jean-Francois Nifenecker wrote:


Hi Sophie!

Le 05/02/2011 16:29, Sophie Gautier a écrit :


May be you can work with Alex, he said on the FR list that he is going
to improve the Base documentation once he has finished to translate the
Guide for beginners? However I don't know in which language he will work :)


Yes, I've read Alex' announcement but, as I'm not so sure we are working on the same things, 
didn't raise my hand (yet). I'm mainly focusing on writing a beginners' guide from scratch and, 
from what I had understood, Alex's translating an existing document (Mariano Casanova's mid level 
doc).


Just correct me if I'm wrong.

My beginners' guide idea was born from a few in-house requests that no-one could fulfill. As I 
already stated, I've already a few pages written on this and I'm working on a few more to come 
(see the outline in a former msg in this thread).


Of course, sharing the free software ideas as you may know ;)  I'm willing to cooperate into any 
collective work in this matter.


All the best,


I really like your outline, and I'd say your English is *more* than adequate to get the points 
across. I'd be glad to edit for smoothing it out if that's needed.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Problems Updating in Alfresco

2011-02-05 Thread Barbara Duprey

Yes, please. Meanwhile, can we use the Discussion capability to indicate what's going on with 
documents we can't deal with properly, or is that also going to come up against a rule? I don't know 
exactly how Discussion works, but it could serve as a stopgap, I think.


On 2/5/2011 1:17 AM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi, :-)

Maybe I should finish with the email-sending configuration quickly, or
else we need to temporarily deactivate those rules. Let me get back to
you quickly about that.

David Nelson

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 14:31, Jeremy Cartwright  wrote:

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 06:04:13 +
"John M. Dlugosz"  wrote:


I uploaded a new version, but got the same "error sending email".  I
can't tell if it actually took my new version or threw it away.

Assuming it was taken, y'all can see that I added "comments" and a
few edits with change tracking turned on.


I see in the document properties you are listed as the modifier. But
under versioning history Hal Parker's is the last name to update the
file. Also, I didn't see any notes - on Alfresco's discussion or
within the .odt.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Use of Nabble and/or Mail to Thread Discussion ?

2011-02-05 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 2/5/2011 2:00 AM, John M. Dlugosz wrote:

I'm following these discussions and doing the documentation editing on my laptop, which is not my "main 
computer" where I have my email set up.  I can't "Reply" using Nabble, since it says I don't 
have permission (why?).  I can send out a top-level message to start a new thread by sending it to the list 
address, no problem.  But how can I keep the discussion thread when I don't have the original message in an 
email program to "reply" to?


Are you subscribed to the list, at least with -nomail? For some reason, this setup works differently 
than the OOo/ezmlm lists; I've seen some indications that people need the -nomail subscriptions here.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Use of Nabble and/or Mail to Thread Discussion ?

2011-02-06 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 2/6/2011 6:30 AM, drew wrote:

On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 15:13 +0800, David Nelson wrote:

Hi, :-)

I'm CC'ing this to Drew Jensen, who originally set-up Nabble, and
Christian Lohmaier. Hopefully, they will be able to provide further
enlightenment...

David Nelson

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 02:09, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 2/5/2011 2:00 AM, John M. Dlugosz wrote:

I'm following these discussions and doing the documentation editing on my
laptop, which is not my "main computer" where I have my email set up. I
can't "Reply" using Nabble, since it says I don't have permission (why?). I
can send out a top-level message to start a new thread by sending it to the
list address, no problem. But how can I keep the discussion thread when I
don't have the original message in an email program to "reply" to?

Are you subscribed to the list, at least with -nomail? For some reason, this
setup works differently than the OOo/ezmlm lists; I've seen some indications
that people need the -nomail subscriptions here.

PLEASE don't give advice without understanding.

Hmm... I thought I was asking a question, not giving advice, and please note the "some indications"
-- this was not intended as a positive statement that a -nomail subscription is required, just a
reaction to some things I've seen here. What I hoped was that somebody who actually knew what was
needed would respond (it had been several hours since the initial post), and you did. Thanks.

From what you say below, it appears that Nabble initiates the subscription to the ML for the poster
(once properly registered with the Nabble database), either with or without the -nomail option as
specified by the poster, and that the poster does not need to do it directly (in the "normal" way,
from a mail client). But the poster needs to complete the subscription process by replying to the
confirmation message sent by the TDF/LibO list manager, so that no moderation is required. Am I
understanding now? I did get a bit confused between "registration" and "subscription" -- these are
normally not synonymous terms.

OK the big difference is that Nabble maintains a separate archive and
has it's own members database - so if you want to post via the Nabble
archive you must have an account in the TDF specific nabble database.
You must also be subscribed to the mailing list.

Here is the way it works in practice - the Nabble archive right now
'sees' 80+ Mailing lists for TDF, once a person registers with the
TDF/Nabble archive then from within the Nabble interface they can go to
a TDF/List and have Nabble handle the list registration - you can, from
within the Nabble interface opt to receive mails to your personal
in-box, but the default it to not do so.

If you registered to a TDF mail list in a 'normal' way, meaning outside
of the Nabble interface, then you sill must register with the Nabble
database (tdf specific db) before it will post a message to the any list
for you - which is a good thing, so no anonymous posting.

Let's look at that again - I registered with a TDF mail list, from my
mail client, I go to Nabble and say post this to that list - it says I
don't know you, so you register with Nabble and then go to the list and
try to post - Nabble will say: You must be registered with the list and
you just say - go to hell and post it..it works, because once nabble
knows who you are it will do what you ask.

Now you are not registered to a ML from you mail client.
You go to Nabble, try to post, are prompted to register, you do so, now
you want to post to a list and Nabble again tells you that you must
_still_ register with the list (because Nabble does not own the lists)
and you say OK - nabble will generate an email to register your email
address (the one your registered with Nabble) to the mailing list with
the noreply flag, you will get a confirmation in your mail client in-box
and you must reply to that just as if you had registered yourself.

Now - one advantage here is that you never need to unregister. This is
really good for those cases where someone wants to ask 1 or 2 questions
and then doesn't want to see the list anymore. or, a likely scenario,
they ask 1 or 2 questions every year or so, this is a common scenario
and again this never needing to unregister (therefore not needing to
re-register) is handy.

That 1 or 2 question person by the way (and yes I already ran the
numbers for LIbO, just like I did at OO.o) makes up the overwhelming
majority of list users (and not just on the users list).

To wrap it up - for the OP here, just register with Nabble, for on-going
purposes, I wrote this long email as a first draft for a wiki
page...will put a link here when it is done.

Thanks

Drew

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Completed Review of 0203WG3-WorkingWithText.odt

2011-02-06 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 2/5/2011 5:09 PM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi John, :-)

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 19:36, John M. Dlugosz  wrote:

I completed my pass of 0203WG3-WorkingWithText.odt, but I still cannot Update 
it!  So please take heed that I have a lot of work on this that is in limbo, 
and don't edit the same file.

You should be able to update it now.


I would think that we should all have "Changes" and "Comments" visible when 
working on any of this stuff, as a matter of course.

Yes, that would generally be the case.

David Nelson


I find that while I'm making changes, having recording on but not showing the change tracks makes it 
a lot easier to see what is actually being done -- especially when punctuation is involved.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Misc. Documentation Notes

2011-02-06 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 2/6/2011 6:29 AM, Rogerio Luz Coelho wrote:

John ... I guess if you are already doing this, so you could start it the
way you choose, later if we have a need to change it, we could always change
your template.

You already are working with building a template, so just keep on doing
that, and if it ever needs changing we change the template.

How about that?

Rogerio

2011/2/6 John M. Dlugosz


* Example, "covered in Chapter 1, Introducing Writer."
Should the name of another chapter be in italics or something?  Or even
hyperlinked?  Actually, it should have a character style assigned.


I summarized what the template itself had to say about the use of styles (see Terminology and Styles 
under "various") -- I noted where I thought new styles looked useful. But the response I got about 
trying to do this level of update was basically, "Let's get the documents out first, and clean up 
this kind of detail later." Is that still the case? I don't know if anybody else has looked at that 
document yet, it will need updating when we focus more on this type of issue.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Misc. Documentation Notes

2011-02-07 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 2/6/2011 11:21 PM, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
On 2/6/2011 12:58 PM, Barbara Duprey Barb-at-onr.com |LibreOffice Documentation Mailing
List/Allow to home| wrote:
I summarized what the template itself had to say about the use of styles (see Terminology and
Styles under "various") -- I noted where I thought new styles looked useful. But the response I
got about trying to do this level of update was basically, "Let's get the documents out first,
and clean up this kind of detail later." Is that still the case? I don't know if anybody else has
looked at that document yet, it will need updating when we focus more on this type of issue.

I'll peruse what is under "various", if that's where such notes can be found.

My two cents: If I'm proofing for any reason and notice such things, I'd like to be able to mark
them. It doesn't mean it is necessary to be complete at this point or that such a mark has any
effect in the output, but it will save having to look for them again later.

So simply having a style defined would be helpful. We can decide on exactly how it should look,
and make sure they are all covered, later. Until then, set a subtle effect for draft work and no
difference from normal text on final output, so user's won't see it.

I agree -- right now, they are generally either OOoEmphasis or OOoStrongEmphasis, but not
consistently. The template itself covers it under Character Styles -- I just summarized in a table
for easier reference. It might be a start. And I've done the same thing sometimes when I happened to
notice that the readability was affected. It's just not something to get really serious about yet,
apparently. Doing it right will certainly be time-consuming -- but there seem to be at least two of
us who are champing at the bit to do it!

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Template Thoughts and Update

2011-02-07 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 2/7/2011 3:36 AM, John M. Dlugosz wrote:

I updated LibO3_3_chapter_template.ott in various. I left change tracking on,
so you can see what I proposed.

* It already mentions that names of books and such should use the Emphasized
style. Although I recall from grade school treating the names of books and the
names of stories differently, I suppose for simplicity we can have just one.
But, how would we hyperlink/cross reference the name of a different chapter, or
worse yet, the name of a section within a different chapter?

The decision was not to attempt any hyperlinking between chapters or books, at least not yet. I
asked before.

* The OTT file already notes that there are styles for Menu Paths and certain
UI elements. I saw that they were not always used, and in fact did not notice
such a style at first. The template admonishes against ever using Bold and
Italic or other changes directly.

Right, but it's been done anyway sometimes.

It states that names of dialog boxes are in plain text. I changed that to
refer to a new LibOUiItem style, which I defined to look exactly like the
existing OooMenuPath style. Also, use the same treatment on all elements
uniformly; buttons are not different from field labels, etc.

Why not OOoDialogName (or LibDialogName)? There are lots of user interface items, let's be specific.
Buttons, icons, dialog tabs,

As for the appearance of the menu path separators, I made a User Field for
that. Apparently, as far as I can tell, I can insert text but not associated
complex formatting. Is there a fancier mechanism available? So, you need to
use the field to insert whatever character and spacing is used, and also apply
a character format to just that part. And, the whole of the substitution needs
to work with a single style.

At least, once that is done, you can change the arrow character, it spacing,
and its style globally and it changes everywhere.

Related question: does the template changer add-in pull in "User Fields"? Do
they normally replicate in the manner of a style change when you open the document again?

* What fonts are used? What fonts can/should we use? I noticed another stray
bit of formatting in the OTT file: one word was in Bitstream Vera Serif. And
in the chapter I looked at initially, the contents of a table is DejaVu Serif
and the table headers in DejaVu Sans. Looking closely now, that is not the
definition of the styles, so it was applied directly.

Is there a tool to show what fonts are being used in the document? It would
help identify stray formatting.
Likewise, is there a way to identify or search for any ad-hoc formatting, as
opposed to text that only gets its attributes from named styles?

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Template Thoughts and Update

2011-02-09 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 2/9/2011 11:15 AM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi John, :-)

I had a look at your revised template. My 2 cents about things would be this:

1) One of the first things I'd like personally to see done would be to
rename the OOo styles as LibO styles. I can't think of any reason for
*not* doing this. Can anyone else think of any issues that would
arise?

I'd like to see the prefix end with something other than a capital letter -- the style name will be
considerably easier to read that way. Lib, Lo, LibO-, or something else. But any name changes have
to take the style hierarchy into account, and will force all the documents through a number of hoops
to apply the right styles. I'm not sure what steps are required there, or how automatic they can be.

2) As regards the menu item separator, I'd opt for simplicity and just
use ">". Using a field feels like an unnecessary complication to me,
and I'm not so fond of the arrow in LiberationMono. I'd add a sentence
to make this a convention.

This is my preference, too; it's a very widely used technique.

3) There no clear conventions in the template about how to express
keystrokes and keystroke sequences. My suggestion would be that we
should add explanations about this. Again, I'd keep things simple and
use "<>" to enclose all keystrokes, and I would't bother with special
characters from WingDings, etc (for the Mac key, for instance).
So we'd have:

,, + etc.

However, it's true that the LibreOffice software itself doesn't do
this. So what are people's thoughts on that?

David Nelson

The original template called for the OOoKeystroke style (Liberation Sans italic) for these, and the
docs seem mostly to do that, with no angle brackets, and generally the label that appears on a
standard keyboard (or an easily identifiable abbreviation like Bksp) -- but I'd agree that for
things like the Mac command key and the Windows key I'd rather see the name, and brackets might help
distinguish them. Having them all in angle brackets would be OK, but I'd prefer to +
, for example, or better yet use square brackets, which are easier to type: [Ctrl-S]. I like
Jean-Francois' Liberation Sans bold white-on-black style for them, but why not modify the existing
style? In any case, adding an explanation to the template and to a Conventions component in the
front matter would be good.

I'd also like to see individual, readily identifiable style names for each type of referenced item.
(I'll use Lib here as the prefix, but we should agree on one.) So : LibStyleName, LibFieldName,
LibTabName, LibRefBookName, LibRefChapterName, LibRefHeading, LibDialogSection, LibButtonName,
LibIconName, Then there's no confusion about what is preferred. Right now, they're mostly
either OOoEmphasis or OOoStrongEmphasis, or done by direct application (ugh!). The template shows
the things that the user clicks on as OOoMenuPath (bold), and the others as OOoEmphasis (italic),
but this has been very inconsistently applied. Having the unambiguous names in the custom styles
list would make it easy to apply the right style, and to make consistent changes for individual
items as desired.

[libreoffice-documentation] Calc Guide

2011-02-10 Thread Barbara Duprey

In trying to verify the screen shots in Chapter 9, I keep getting bogged down because I don't 
understand how to set things up and what is supposed to happen. When I can't see what the setup 
expects, or the screenshot is different, I don't know if I've done something wrong or there's really 
a problem. I'm inclined to think I can be most useful doing all the other branding changes, and 
leaving screenshot verification for somebody else. OK?


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Calc Guide

2011-02-10 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 2/10/2011 9:08 PM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi, :-)

My 2 cents would be that it's probably more productive to just do what
you can easily do, as you say, and then flag it as needing further
attention (start a discussion on Alfresco, leave comments in the file,
or whatever).

David Nelson


Thanks, David. Reduces my learning curve a lot! If nobody else gets around to it, I'll revisit this 
later, but for now I'll stick with the rest of the changes. I can't take the screenshots anyway, I'm 
on Windows.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Calc Guide

2011-02-11 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 2/11/2011 3:03 PM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi, :-)

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 04:56, Jean Hollis Weber  wrote:

For some of the Calc Guide chapters, the ODFAuthors team has spreadsheet
files with data that can be used to reproduce and check the examples
given in the book. Later today I will look for these.

Where should I put them on the Alfresco site? I haven't looked at it in
awhile; are there spaces for writers' resources like that?

It would be great if you could. "Company Home>  LibreOffice>
LibreOffice Documentation>  various" would seem like a good place?

David Nelson


Sounds like the right place, and they would certainly help -- along with any guidance folks have 
been given about using them. A subfolder for them would probably be a good idea, too. There might be 
some good before/after extracts from them that would help explain the processes involved with 
screenshots, too. I found Chapter 9 very tough going, and I didn't even try to make sense of 
sections that didn't have any illustrations at all (quite a lot of that).


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[libreoffice-documentation] Calc Chapter 2 Mysteries

2011-02-13 Thread Barbara Duprey

In doing the initial pass on Chapter 2, I found some strange things. Many of the index entries were 
blank, and several figures were also missing (though the frame was sized to contain them).


I checked against the OOo version on Alfresco, and there were blank index entries there, too. I 
could make a stab at them, but I'm not sure I should, that's not an area I've had experience with 
and it seems to be more an art than a science. :-)


The missing figures were there in the OOo version, so I copied them and pasted into the LibO 
version. Each time, the paste resulted in having two copies of the figure. Ctrl-Z to undo the paste 
left a properly filled figure frame. Very strange!


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[libreoffice-documentation] First pass complete -- except Chapter 1

2011-02-13 Thread Barbara Duprey

I've finished the first pass for the Calc Guide, doing all the mechanical things, except that 
Chapter 1 is locked (by Jeremy, apparently). In addition to the previously mentioned blank index 
entries in Chapter 2, there were none at all in Chapter 8.


One question that is belatedly occurring to me -- in the Acknowledgments section, the OOo chapters 
often had references to outside sources. I replaced the section with one referencing the OOo guide 
and the people who were on its contributors list, without the other acknowledgments. But should 
those be replicated as well? (Note that in some cases, this would force the TOC to a later page.)


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[libreoffice-documentation] First pass complete

2011-02-13 Thread Barbara Duprey

OK, all the files for the Calc Guide are in the LibO format now. I'll start working on the 
screenshot verifications tomorrow, where I can.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Calc Chapter 2 Mysteries

2011-02-14 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 2/14/2011 6:11 AM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:

On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 03:34 -0800, JDługosz wrote:

Jean Hollis Weber wrote:

I have several tricks to get the pix visible again; if I find my notes,
I'll post them.

How about grabbing the Writer chapter I kicked back to drafts:  One of them
has serious missing image issues, and you could give that a shake and
update.

That copy of Writer Guide Chapter 1 is, in fact, missing images; they
aren't just hidden. You can tell from the unusually small file size, and
by unzipping the file and looking in the Pictures folder. I don't know
what causes that to happen, although I've seen it a few times.

David Nelson, how does one pull up an older version of a file from
Alfresco? A lot of the pix in this chapter can be resurrected from the
OOo counterpart or from Ron Faile's pix, but otherwise copying them from
a previous version of the chapter might be faster and easier.

I'll leave it to Hal or someone to do the actual restoration work.

--Jean


I'll do that. To answer that "how" question -- if you go to the version history and click on an 
older version, that should be the one downloaded.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Calc Chapter 2 Mysteries

2011-02-14 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 2/14/2011 10:07 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 2/14/2011 6:11 AM, Jean Hollis Weber wrote:

On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 03:34 -0800, JDługosz wrote:

Jean Hollis Weber wrote:

I have several tricks to get the pix visible again; if I find my notes,
I'll post them.

How about grabbing the Writer chapter I kicked back to drafts:  One of them
has serious missing image issues, and you could give that a shake and
update.

That copy of Writer Guide Chapter 1 is, in fact, missing images; they
aren't just hidden. You can tell from the unusually small file size, and
by unzipping the file and looking in the Pictures folder. I don't know
what causes that to happen, although I've seen it a few times.

David Nelson, how does one pull up an older version of a file from
Alfresco? A lot of the pix in this chapter can be resurrected from the
OOo counterpart or from Ron Faile's pix, but otherwise copying them from
a previous version of the chapter might be faster and easier.

I'll leave it to Hal or someone to do the actual restoration work.

--Jean


I'll do that. To answer that "how" question -- if you go to the version history and click on an 
older version, that should be the one downloaded.


Done.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] First pass complete

2011-02-14 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 2/13/2011 10:01 PM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi Barbara, :-)

If you look in the Various space, you'll see that there's a zip file
containing screenshots done by Ron Faile... Maybe they can be useful?

David Nelson


As I understand it, those screenshots were for a couple of early Writer chapters -- and done with 
Windows, which we are not using now for legal reasons.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] First pass complete

2011-02-14 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 2/14/2011 11:35 AM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi, :-)

I haven't looked, I must admit. Are you on Windows, Mac or Linux, Barbara?

David Nelson


I'm on Windows 7, David. There are probably going to be a large number of graphics replacements 
needed -- even beyond the OOo refs, there appear to be significant differences in icons, and so on. 
Gonna be fun, huh?


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Terminology: "selecting" is not enough!

2011-02-16 Thread Barbara Duprey

I have another problem with the enabled/disabled terminology -- I think it can easily be 
misunderstood as modifiable/unmodifiable (available/"grayed out"). This terminology is not in common 
use and I think it would be more confusing than helpful. Often "click" would be a reasonable 
substitute, but I have no problem with "select" and definitely prefer it for options in a list, for 
example.


On 2/16/2011 5:20 AM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)

I can totally agree with both points of view.  I think select and de-select are
probably easier to understand for more users although it is good to know why i
felt uncomfortable about it!  Enabled as the opposite of disabled is more
uncomfortable politically since people in wheelchairs (a growing segment of
society) are often said to be "disabled" despite the fact that there might only
be a very limited number of things they can't do so well and many others they
may do better.  So, for a lot of office users the words might be uncomfortable.
Select and de-select are safe even if i do still shudder a bit when de-select is
used.

Generally it is better to stick with a word that is used a lot in documentation
even if it is blatantly wrong or used badly but consistently.  Flagging it up by
emailing the list but not changing the documentation is the best way of handling
that sort of thing.  My pet hate is the use of , before "and" or "but".  It is
bad English but good American so i have to try to stop myself from correcting it
if i ever get around to doing any work.  Oddly i prefer lower-case i to
distinguish it from 1 or l and because i think it look friendlier despite it
being wrong.

Regards from
Tom :)






From: Jean Hollis Weber
To: documentation@libreoffice.org
Sent: Wed, 16 February, 2011 8:54:05
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Terminology:  "selecting" is not
enough!

On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 23:59 -0800, JDługosz wrote:

I noticed in the chapters I'm working on that often various things, such as
all the items on the various pages of the Options dialog, it refers to
"selecting" an option.  In one place it was more noticeable in the user was
directed to "select" something in the dialog.

In that case, the terminology is clearly wrong.  Selecting is not the same
as operating on the widget.  Selecting directs the attention to it, and
another operation may then be performed, such as toggling a check box.

I suppose in some context where the option itself is referred to in an
imperative sense, saying the option is selected is OK and in fact I didn't
notice initially.  But you'd have to be careful about the wording of the
sentence: are you being imperative or directing the user's action?  It's
more consistent and easier to just use a word that always works.  To that
end, I'm changing whatever descriptive phrase was used to "enabled"
(antonym: "disabled").  That works for any type of control (check box, radio
box, combo-box).

I'm also trying to be more careful about wording things to reflect the
desired state, rather than the action.  I.e. clicking on an option doesn't
necessarily enable it:  it will toggle it, and you shouldn't click on it
unless it was off before.  So don't (just) direct the user to click on
something to achieve an effect.  Rather, the effect occurs when the option
is enabled.  And of course this is the very case in which merely selecting
it doesn't do anything other than make the gui draw a selection rectangle
around that item.


 From a programmer's POV, that's what "select" does. However, from an
ordinary USER's POV, "select" turns it on and "deselect" turns it off.

--Jean




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Terminology: "selecting" is not enough!

2011-02-16 Thread Barbara Duprey

That's OK, too, for checkbox (tickbox?) items, and maybe radio buttons. I think our terminology list 
needs to be updated and reviewed for the preferred way/ways to express this for the different UI 
items. I doubt there's a one-size-fits-all solution, though for me select comes closest. I'll put 
something together. Until we've agreed on the way we want to go, I don't think there should be any 
blanket changes to the existing terminology.


On 2/16/2011 8:36 AM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi, :-)

I often use "activate" or "deactivate". Or, speaking more loosely,
"switch on" and "switch off".

David Nelson



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Terminology: "selecting" is not enough!

2011-02-17 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 2/17/2011 8:36 PM, JDługosz wrote:

Barbara Duprey wrote:

I have another problem with the enabled/disabled terminology -- I think it
can easily be
misunderstood as modifiable/unmodifiable (available/"grayed out"). This
terminology is not in common
use and I think it would be more confusing than helpful. Often "click"
would be a reasonable
substitute, but I have no problem with "select" and definitely prefer it
for options in a list, for
example.

"select" is a synonym for "choose" and would be applicable for a drop-down
combo-box or a set of radio buttons. But for checking/unchecking a check
box, it is simply the wrong word. You are not selecting one option from all
of them on the page; you are individually turning each option on or off.

I agree, "disabled" is used for graying out a menu item, at least in the
Win32 API. Popular use is just "grayed out" though.

"clicking" a check box does not mean "ensure it is checked." The action of
clicking it will probably toggle it. It is correct to click a button,
though.

How about "check"? Well, as a verb it means "hinder or restrain" so
un-checking the Foo option will check the operation of Foo. Or it means
"inspect" which will find out what it is; so you want to check your margin
settings when setting up the page. So, don't use "check" to mean "mark" as
a verb, in this context.

The text in the document that you indicate by swiping the mouse is "The
Selection", and you select some text before hitting the "bold" tool, for
example. Selecting a named item from a combo-box is acceptable usage.

I think we should focus on explaining what the various options indicate,
rather than directing the user to click on them or saying that the effect
would happen if the user enabled them. That is to be understood: just
state the effect itself!

I just went to another program at random: the context help for the Options
page on Firefox reads, "When this option is enabled, Firefox will..."

On Notepad++, "Check the option to ..."

On XYplorer, some don't use a state or verb, just lists the meaning without
preamble. Others use check/uncheck.

7-zip: on the file manager options, most of the time doesn't use any
preamble. E.g. "Displays gridlines around items and subitems." Some uses
of "select". The rest use "enabled".

Foxit reader: on the printing help, "select" is followed by " from a list".
No preamble for options explanations, but they are mostly radio buttons.

So, I think there is lots of competition against "select" to mean "mark on".

--John

Good points, I'll incorporate this into the terminology document for us all to collaborate on. As I
said, I don't expect a single answer here, it depends on the type of UI item involved, and sometimes
on the behavior resulting from the choice.

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Terminology: "selecting" is not enough!

2011-02-19 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 2/17/2011 10:12 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

What terms does the LibreOffice Help use? I thought that was our main
terminology selection criterion.

Hal


The things we're discussing here are, I think, too context-sensitive to be 
readily searchable.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Terminology: "selecting" is not enough!

2011-02-19 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 2/18/2011 2:08 AM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)

Most documentation just confuses people so copying what they use probably wont
help us.  If we are going to look at documentation then a community edited one
would be better, such as Ubuntu's but it would need to be regularly edited
bynoobs rather than by geeks so perhaps Ubuntu's might be the best one to look
at.  Documentation for Windows apps tends to be the most confusing documentation
for most people.

"Greyed out" is a very geeky term.  Admittedly low-level geeks but still not an
average user. "Check" is kinda American.  In English it tends to mean a method
of payment or "to stop and look around" or as described.  Tick the option might
be a good way to say it but "UNtick" confuses people.  Select means to to choose
and that seems to make sense to people.

Regards from
Tom :)


There seems to have been a decision long ago to use US-English terminology and spelling in the 
English documents. "Tick" is not used in the USA, except when talking about the blood-sucking 
insect! I think "not available" is fine instead of "grayed out" but not often needed anyway.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Writer Guide reviews

2011-02-19 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 2/19/2011 4:43 PM, JDługosz wrote:

I should point out that it doesn't have to be reviewed by one person or all
at once.

Anyone can flip through some of a chapter and double-check and accept all
the typo fixes and formatting fixes, like stray letters that have been set
as Times New Roman and wonky margins and misspelled words. Then put it back
for someone else to look at later.

If all the easy changes are reviewed and the only thing left are subject to
discussion, then say so in the discussion thread. Note that things I've
flagged as needing work are Comments, not Changes, so they will just sit
there along for the ride until they are addressed. No need to take those
out!

As for the chapter dealing with Options, there are I think 2 or so places
where "select" was used in a sentence that was really wrong. The rest of
them, that I changed systematically, could be rejected until further
discussion. But, is my rewording any worse than the original?

--John

As you've seen, there is some definite disagreement with the use of enable/disable, so I think those
changes should probably be rejected for now while we get the first edition out.

As for the more time-consuming changes, I think moving the files elsewhere with those comments, and
"rejecting" them for now in the working set, would make it easier for the remaining reviewers
(second proof and publication) to deal with the files. Probably not a biggie, though.

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Problem with List box form control properties

2011-02-21 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 2/19/2011 9:21 PM, David Nelson wrote:

Hi, :-)

Pass. Maybe it's worth asking this question on the devs list. They'd
probably give you quick and helpful answers.

David Nelson


I submitted a bug report Jan 27:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33537

There's been no QA contact assigned yet, so apparently nothing is happening there. I haven't 
subscribed to the devs list (getting totally swamped with the ones I'm on already!). Hal, do you 
want to try that route?


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Problem with List box form control properties

2011-02-21 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 2/21/2011 11:39 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote:

Le 21/02/11 18:09, David Nelson a écrit :

Hi all,

Anyway, my experience with bug reports is that they *do* get attended
to - and fairly quickly - but still it can take a few days before
someone checks it out, especially if it doesn't fall in the
showstopper class. Also, the reports that get the most attention are
those that are filed with a lot of detail (screenshots, step-by-step
explanations, etc.).

I have confirmed that I have been unable to get this to work, without
binding to a data source (which I haven't tried) - with NeoOffice 3.1.2
Patch 4, OOo 3.2.1, OOo 3.3.0 final, and LibO 3.3.1 RC2.

Either we are all doing something wrong (like Barbara I tried every
which way imaginable to get the list entered), or else the functionality
has ceased to work correctly.

FYI, binding listboxes to datafield lists of results via listboxes has
broken, been repaired, broken again with successive versions of OOo from
3.1.x through 3.2.1 to 3.3.x. I haven't tried my old db forms recently
to see if the problem has come back again.

Alex

Thanks, Alex, I really appreciate your attention to this! David, in this case the step-by-step
process in the Writer Guide was cited, and some possible alternatives that were tried. I definitely
agree with not just filing bug reports as a first step, but this seemed pretty clear-cut. I spent
too many years as a software developer to be cavalier about bug reporting!

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Barbara D: Writer Guide Master Doc chapter

2011-02-21 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 2/17/2011 10:46 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Jean Hollis Weberwrote:

On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 14:20 +1000, Hal Parker wrote:

Barbara, in your review of the Writer Guide chapter on master documents,

the section on splitting a document into master and subdocs, youleft a

note

to say that you did not see the "separated by:" list on the Name and Path

Master Document dialog box; all you saw was "template".

I have now tested the instructions in that section on Windows XP, Windows

Mac OS X, and Ubuntu 10.10. On Windows (XP and 7) and Mac, the dialog box
shows a "separated by:" list, as described; however, on Ubuntu the list

was

called "Styles". I'm trying to work out what you could have done to give

different result. Perhaps you'd like to try it again?

Actually, if you have selected "Use LibreOffice Open/Save dialogs" in
the Options, you'll see "separated by:" in Name and Path of Master
Document dialog on Ubuntu, too.

--Jean

Oh. Er, yes. Silly me. Thanks! That also explains why some other dialogs
looked different from what I was expecting. And it's a good reminder to all
of us to check/tick/select/enable/whatever that option.

Hal

Sorry, this one got lost in the flood of mail. It didn't occur to me that this option was involved,
I've fixed it now. I don't know if all the dialog differences I saw were from this, but I don't
think all of them were in any way related to load/save actions.

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Barbara D: Writer Guide Master Doc chapter

2011-02-21 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 2/21/2011 3:07 PM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 2/17/2011 10:46 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Jean Hollis Weberwrote:

On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 14:20 +1000, Hal Parker wrote:

Barbara, in your review of the Writer Guide chapter on master documents,

the section on splitting a document into master and subdocs, youleft a

note

to say that you did not see the "separated by:" list on the Name and Path

Master Document dialog box; all you saw was "template".

I have now tested the instructions in that section on Windows XP, Windows

Mac OS X, and Ubuntu 10.10. On Windows (XP and 7) and Mac, the dialog box
shows a "separated by:" list, as described; however, on Ubuntu the list

was

called "Styles". I'm trying to work out what you could have done to give

different result. Perhaps you'd like to try it again?

Actually, if you have selected "Use LibreOffice Open/Save dialogs" in
the Options, you'll see "separated by:" in Name and Path of Master
Document dialog on Ubuntu, too.

--Jean

Hal

Sorry, this one got lost in the flood of mail. It didn't occur to me that this option was
involved, I've fixed it now. I don't know if all the dialog differences I saw were from this, but
I don't think all of them were in any way related to load/save actions.

BTW, since this may be a fairly common issue for people, there probably should be a Note in the text
anywhere that option is required, right?

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Barbara D: Writer Guide Master Doc chapter

2011-02-21 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 2/21/2011 6:12 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 2/17/2011 10:46 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Jean Hollis Weber
wrote:

On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 14:20 +1000, Hal Parker wrote:

Barbara, in your review of the Writer Guide chapter on master documents,

the section on splitting a document into master and subdocs, youleft a

note

to say that you did not see the "separated by:" list on the Name and
Path

Master Document dialog box; all you saw was "template".

I have now tested the instructions in that section on Windows XP,
Windows

Mac OS X, and Ubuntu 10.10. On Windows (XP and 7) and Mac, the dialog
box
shows a "separated by:" list, as described; however, on Ubuntu the list

was

called "Styles". I'm trying to work out what you could have done to give

different result. Perhaps you'd like to try it again?

Actually, if you have selected "Use LibreOffice Open/Save dialogs" in
the Options, you'll see "separated by:" in Name and Path of Master
Document dialog on Ubuntu, too.

--Jean

Oh. Er, yes. Silly me. Thanks! That also explains why some other dialogs
looked different from what I was expecting. And it's a good reminder to
all
of us to check/tick/select/enable/whatever that option.

Hal

Sorry, this one got lost in the flood of mail. It didn't occur to me that
this option was involved, I've fixed it now. I don't know if all the dialog
differences I saw were from this, but I don't think all of them were in any
way related to load/save actions.

That option appears to affect many dialogs that are not apparently related
to load/save actions (though they might be, from a behind-the-scenes
programming POV.

However, in this case it only affected the appearance of the dialog, not the
wording of the fields and drop-down lists (except on Linux), so you should
have seen "separated by" regardless.

Hal

Maybe "should have" -- but didn't. I've repeated the process with the option set, and it worked;
without the option, no separate files were created at all (unless they went to some temporary
location different from where I sent the master doc, which was to the Desktop for easy temporary
access). Not only the wording was different, but the underlying function.

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Barbara D: Writer Guide Master Doc chapter

2011-02-22 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 2/21/2011 6:36 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 2/21/2011 6:12 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 2/17/2011 10:46 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Jean Hollis Weber
wrote:

On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 14:20 +1000, Hal Parker wrote:

Barbara, in your review of the Writer Guide chapter on master

documents,

the section on splitting a document into master and subdocs, youleft a

note

to say that you did not see the "separated by:" list on the Name and

Path

Master Document dialog box; all you saw was "template".

I have now tested the instructions in that section on Windows XP,
Windows

Mac OS X, and Ubuntu 10.10. On Windows (XP and 7) and Mac, the dialog

box
shows a "separated by:" list, as described; however, on Ubuntu the
list

was

called "Styles". I'm trying to work out what you could have done to

give

different result. Perhaps you'd like to try it again?

Actually, if you have selected "Use LibreOffice Open/Save dialogs" in

the Options, you'll see "separated by:" in Name and Path of Master
Document dialog on Ubuntu, too.

--Jean

Oh. Er, yes. Silly me. Thanks! That also explains why some other

dialogs
looked different from what I was expecting. And it's a good reminder to
all
of us to check/tick/select/enable/whatever that option.

Hal

Sorry, this one got lost in the flood of mail. It didn't occur to me

that
this option was involved, I've fixed it now. I don't know if all the
dialog
differences I saw were from this, but I don't think all of them were in
any
way related to load/save actions.

That option appears to affect many dialogs that are not apparently

related
to load/save actions (though they might be, from a behind-the-scenes
programming POV.

However, in this case it only affected the appearance of the dialog, not
the
wording of the fields and drop-down lists (except on Linux), so you should
have seen "separated by" regardless.

Hal

Maybe "should have" -- but didn't. I've repeated the process with the
option set, and it worked; without the option, no separate files were
created at all (unless they went to some temporary location different from
where I sent the master doc, which was to the Desktop for easy temporary
access). Not only the wording was different, but the underlying function.

This sounds like something that is worth trying to diagnose, because it
worked fine for me without the "use LibO dialog" option being selected. On
Mac and Win, I saw the expected field name (separated by) on the dialog, and
the files were created as they were supposed to. On Ubuntu, the field name
was different (Styles) but the function still worked.

Hal

I'm using Win7 Home Premium and a pretty vanilla Classic-type setup, and here (assuming the
clipboard paste works) is what I see when I don't use LibO dialogs:

And here it is with the LibO dialogs:

When I tried today with the native dialogs, it worked (once I put in a name, until then it just
hung) -- last time it created an odm file on the desktop but no visible odt parts, although the
whole document was visible and not obviously different. With the LibO dialogs, everything works as
expected. I can't explain why the different behavior, I'm still using the same 3.3.0-Build 4 version
of LibO (not sure whether to go to the 3.3.0 final or the 3.3.1 RC ) So I guess the earlier behavior
just has to be chalked up as a fluke. :-(

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] RESOLVED Re: Problem with List box form control properties

2011-02-22 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 2/21/2011 8:33 PM, TomW wrote:

On 2011-02-21 12:39, Alexander Thurgood wrote:

Le 21/02/11 18:09, David Nelson a écrit :

Hi all,

I have confirmed that I have been unable to get this to work, without
binding to a data source (which I haven't tried) - with NeoOffice 3.1.2
Patch 4, OOo 3.2.1, OOo 3.3.0 final, and LibO 3.3.1 RC2.

Either we are all doing something wrong (like Barbara I tried every
which way imaginable to get the list entered), or else the functionality
has ceased to work correctly.

Alex

Hello

To create a list for a 'Listbox' or Combobox':

On 'Control' toolbar select 'Design View'
Right Click on Listbox control: Select 'Control'
'General' tab
Scroll down to 'List Entries'
Type in first entry. e.g. Tom
Shift Enter
Type in next entry. e.g. Ted
etc...
This builds the list.

Tom

LibreOffice 3.3.0
OOO330m17 (Build:3)
libreoffice-build 3.3.0.1
on Vista

Thanks, TomW! I just added the old instructions to the bug, now I'll update the bug report with the
solution.

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Barbara D: Writer Guide Master Doc chapter

2011-02-22 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 2/22/2011 11:44 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 2/21/2011 6:36 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 2/21/2011 6:12 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 2/17/2011 10:46 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Jean Hollis Weber
wrote:

On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 14:20 +1000, Hal Parker wrote:

Barbara, in your review of the Writer Guide chapter on master

documents,

the section on splitting a document into master and subdocs, youleft a

note

to say that you did not see the "separated by:" list on the Name and

Path

Master Document dialog box; all you saw was "template".

I have now tested the instructions in that section on Windows XP,
Windows

Mac OS X, and Ubuntu 10.10. On Windows (XP and 7) and Mac, the dialog

box
shows a "separated by:" list, as described; however, on Ubuntu the
list

was

called "Styles". I'm trying to work out what you could have done to

give

different result. Perhaps you'd like to try it again?

Actually, if you have selected "Use LibreOffice Open/Save dialogs" in

the Options, you'll see "separated by:" in Name and Path of Master
Document dialog on Ubuntu, too.

--Jean

Oh. Er, yes. Silly me. Thanks! That also explains why some other

dialogs
looked different from what I was expecting. And it's a good reminder to
all
of us to check/tick/select/enable/whatever that option.

Hal

Sorry, this one got lost in the flood of mail. It didn't occur to me

that
this option was involved, I've fixed it now. I don't know if all the
dialog
differences I saw were from this, but I don't think all of them were in
any
way related to load/save actions.

That option appears to affect many dialogs that are not apparently

related
to load/save actions (though they might be, from a behind-the-scenes
programming POV.

However, in this case it only affected the appearance of the dialog, not
the
wording of the fields and drop-down lists (except on Linux), so you should
have seen "separated by" regardless.

Hal

Maybe "should have" -- but didn't. I've repeated the process with the
option set, and it worked; without the option, no separate files were
created at all (unless they went to some temporary location different from
where I sent the master doc, which was to the Desktop for easy temporary
access). Not only the wording was different, but the underlying function.

Hal

I'm using Win7 Home Premium and a pretty vanilla Classic-type setup, and here (assuming the
clipboard paste works) is what I see when I don't use LibO dialogs:

And here it is with the LibO dialogs:

When I tried today with the native dialogs, it worked (once I put in a name, until then it just
hung) -- last time it created an odm file on the desktop but no visible odt parts, although the
whole document was visible and not obviously different. With the LibO dialogs, everything works as
expected. I can't explain why the different behavior, I'm still using the same 3.3.0-Build 4
version of LibO (not sure whether to go to the 3.3.0 final or the 3.3.1 RC ) So I guess the
earlier behavior just has to be chalked up as a fluke. :-(

Ah, well, pasted graphics don't work, either. I can supply them elsewhere if anybody cares, just
tell me where it would be best to save them.

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Calc Guide status & question re angle brackets in paths

2011-03-25 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 3/19/2011 8:20 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

I am now turning my attention to the Calc Guide, which Barbara has rebranded
from the OOo version. I've started replacing images and checking for info
that is incorrect for LibO.

One question, regarding the path indicators (angle bracket>  versus arrow):
the consensus awhile ago appeared to be that retaining the angle bracket was
preferable to changing it to an arrow, but that it wasn't worth the effort
at this point to revert the Writer Guide and Getting Started. However,
working now on a new book, I would like to retain the angle brackets. What
say the rest of you?

Hal


I'd say it's probably easier just to leave the arrows for the Calc Guide, and revisit this for the 
other docs or later upgrades to the documentation -- there's plenty of stuff to be done, like the 
style usage work, where this could be part of the whole process. Sound right?


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Calc Guide status & question re angle brackets in paths

2011-03-25 Thread Barbara Duprey

On 3/25/2011 6:27 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Barbara Duprey wrote:

On 3/19/2011 8:20 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

I am now turning my attention to the Calc Guide, which Barbara has
rebranded
from the OOo version. I've started replacing images and checking for info
that is incorrect for LibO.

One question, regarding the path indicators (angle bracket> versus
arrow):
the consensus awhile ago appeared to be that retaining the angle bracket
was
preferable to changing it to an arrow, but that it wasn't worth the effort
at this point to revert the Writer Guide and Getting Started. However,
working now on a new book, I would like to retain the angle brackets. What
say the rest of you?

Hal

I'd say it's probably easier just to leave the arrows for the Calc Guide,
and revisit this for the other docs or later upgrades to the documentation
-- there's plenty of stuff to be done, like the style usage work, where this
could be part of the whole process. Sound right?

While I am going through the chapters replacing screenshots, it takes less
than 2 minutes (while the chapter is being worked on anyway) to do a search
and replace to restore the angle brackets, so IMO "easier" isn't an issue in
this case. If the chapters did not need other work, then I'd agree with you.

Hal

Besides being arrows, they're also in OOoComputerCode style (Liberation Sans Mono), and they'd be
better back in OOoMenuPath. That would take longer than the simple F&R, right? I'm not sure whether
the angle bracket in mono would go well with the rest in straight Liberation Sans. Anyway, the three
main books being consistent (Getting Started, Writer Guide, Calc Guide) may have some value, and the
arrow work was already done. I think there are plans to do some serious style application work, and
more real content development, once the first wave of books has gotten out, so that would be another
opportunity.

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Open Help Conference

2011-03-25 Thread Barbara Duprey


On 3/25/2011 6:33 PM, Hal Parker wrote:

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Shaun McCance  wrote:


Hi all,

I'm organizing the Open Help Conference this June. It's a gathering of
documentation and support people from various open source and community
projects. There are already participants who contribute to projects like
Firefox, GNOME, and Ubuntu.

http://openhelpconference.com/

There are presentations the first day, but with plenty of time between
for hallways conversations. The second day has open discussions, ending
with an open collaboration session where you can get input from peers
and professional tech writers.

We also have rooms availabe after the conference for team sprints, if
you'd like to use the opportunity to do some face-to-face collaboration.

I'd love to see some people from LibreOffice at the conference, and hear
about what you're doing and how well you're transitioning from the old
OpenOffice world to the more community-oriented LibreOffice.

Thanks,
Shaun McCance
Community Help Expert   |   Open Help Conference
http://syllogist.net/   |   http://openhelpconference.com/



This sounds like a good opportunity, if anyone can get there. Do we have any
active documenters/ help producers in North America? And would TDF be
willing to pay the US$100 registration fee and travel costs for one or more
attendees?

I can't come from Australia; it's too far, too expensive, and I already have
other plans for early June.

Hal


I'm in central Texas, but I don't know if I could be useful enough. I'm too new 
at all this!

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

95 matches

Mail list logo