Re: Feedback request | Documentation site reorg, switch to Markdown

[Matthew Paul Thomas]

Peter Matulis wrote on 23/02/17 00:03:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas …
>> First, inconsistency. Moving documents to docs.ubuntu.com makes it
>> practically impossible to achieve consistent design, because
>> docs.ubuntu.com has a different look and navigation from the rest of
>> the site for each project. The most flagrant example is that
>> docs.ubuntu.com pages currently don’t even *link to* the rest of the
>> site for the relevant project.
>>  Even if
>> that was fixed, great effort would be required to implement the rest
>> of the navigation, with the same layout, font, etc on docs.ubuntu.com
>> pages as on the rest of the project’s site. Compare
>>  vs.  (great!)
>> with  vs.  (woefully
>> inconsistent). It would also be much harder to implement a reliable
>> search function across any site including its docs.
> 
> The idea is to improve upon what we have, not to achieve perfection.

For sure. Imperfection is not my claim. My claim is that it would be
worse than what we have.

>…
> You've outlined some solutions in the GH issue, some of which are easy
> to implement and some of which are significantly harder. I don't see
> anything insurmountable however. We have a web team looking at this
> and they happen to be very good at what they do.

I know they’re good. I work right next to them. This month I’ve been
working with them. But no matter how good a team is, some things are
much harder than others, some things are naturally prioritized ahead of
others, and some things never get done. You can’t help but remind me of
the bureaucrat who reassures Indiana Jones that “Top Men” are working on
the soon-to-be-forgotten Ark of the Covenant.

As a demonstration, see . Despite the best
of intentions, after four and a half years, the Web team still have not
quite managed to make it consistent with . It’s
similar enough that you can tell the differences are accidental, rather
than deliberate: a different logo rendering, a differently styled search
field returning unhelpfully different results (how am I supposed to know
whether the info I want is an “insight” or not?), even an
unintentionally different shade of orange.

That case was more excusable because it was a new site, with a dynamic
CMS, for new materials. Moving existing, static materials to a separate
site is what is so egregious here.

> Your first option (your preferred I'm presuming) is to simply
> integrate docs into a project's website (a traditional design). This
> has downsides too: every doc project would have its own branding,
> losing the advantage of a consistent "doc theme" that users will most
> likely prefer as they jump from Juju to MAAS to Landscape,
> technologies that are often used in tandem.

So we disagree about what’s more important: consistency between
documentation of different products, vs. consistency of a product’s
documentation with the rest of the product’s pages.

I think consistency between documentation of different products is less
important, because the number of interactive elements is tiny. It’s not
as if you’ll click on the wrong button because the buttons are placed
differently in Maas docs than in Landscape docs, or that you’ll fail to
recognize a checkbox because it’s styled differently in the Juju docs
than the Ubuntu Core docs. They contain nary a button or checkbox in the
first place! If we were talking about signup forms, or checkouts, or
video players, that would be a better argument.

And I think consistency between documentation and the rest of the pages
about a product is more important, because (as I said before) while some
things may be definitely “documentation” and some definitely not, other
pages will live in a fuzzy area between the two. Having “Docs” as a
category is a common mistake, but still a mistake — like when a company
categorizes its wares into “Products” and “Solutions”, because they know
which is which, and they haven’t realized that nobody else does.

Even if I’m wrong about all that — even if “Docs” are a clear and
definite thing, and there are people who really really want their Juju
and Ubuntu Core and Maas documents to have a consistent theme — they
could just use readthedocs.org, which would do a far better job than
docs.ubuntu.com simply because it *also* documents thousands of other,
non-Ubuntu-specific projects a developer might be jumping between.

> We can always tweak each project's subpage (e.g.
> docs.ubuntu.com/maas ) so that it retains
> some "loyalty" to the parent site (e.g. maas.io ) all
> the while maintaining the foundation of a central theme. I believe I
> just described your second option.
> 
> In terms of search, your first option gains the ability to scan the

Re: Japanese team (reviewer) is not working

[Fumihito YOSHIDA]

Hi,

> Sorry, someone please arbitrate. That's why I appealed here.
> Then, this will not solve anything.

Sorry for later,  and I feel your something uneasiness, but I can't
share your problem yet

Recap of my viewpoint:

  - Ubuntu Japanese Translator still live when you use valid approach.
And, I believe that this is answer of your concern, you did not
contact with valid procedure.

  - When you want to contribute Japanese Translation, you can do it.

  - If you want to become Ubuntu Japanese Translator, you have to
build up your qualifiable results.

Would you please share your concern?

And, you want to became Ubuntu Translator (or adjust our bar), I must
say "No" with strong pain, you are not achieved our minimum bar(Lang
skill and experience for collaboration works) for healthy translations
at this time. So, please build up yourself with us!



Again^2, I send out a *last notice*, you have to show your relevance
in your works in past days. If not provided in a few weeks(because
Z-release are coming), we must revert your works, because your
translation output doesnt't match to FLOSS context.

And, some users  mention to me about your suggestion in translation of
ElementaryOS, that page have a message : "you can use machine
translation", but, I think that have no inquest about license
violation.
https://elementaryjapan.jimdo.com/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E8%AA%9E%E7%BF%BB%E8%A8%B3/

So, in this phase, I have a sense of crisis from this page and your
translation works. Sorry for this explicit question,  but I must say
this, you don't have enough knowledge about FLOSS cultures and
licensing?  And, please provide your truth in past works(see past
replies).

Regards,

-- 
ubuntu-translators mailing list
ubuntu-translators@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-translators