structural & functional review of django documentation

I filed bug report #25952 but apparently it was in the wrong place. And I referenced this post , but I was thinking it was this group ... I

Re: structural & functional review of django documentation

just grousing over nothing important. On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 7:02:56 PM UTC-5, Doug Epling wrote: > > I filed bug report > #25952 <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25952>but apparently it was > in the wrong place. And I referenced this post > <https://groups.

Re: structural & functional review of django documentation

Greetings Shai -- On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 3:57:00 PM UTC-5, Shai Berger wrote: > > Hi Doug, > > On Saturday 26 December 2015 21:08:58 Doug Epling wrote: > > Thanks Carl -- > > > > Here is a good example: > > > > I wanted to read-up on the

Re: structural & functional review of django documentation

uld it be to present every visitor to the documentation with a pop-up (or some other kind of) general invitation to visit a link on Survey Monkey to help us with some feedback? On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 7:02:56 PM UTC-5, Doug Epling wrote: > > I filed bug report > #25952 <https

Re: structural & functional review of django documentation

Again, many thanks Tim, your last post is very helpful to me. On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 7:02:56 PM UTC-5, Doug Epling wrote: > > I filed bug report > #25952 <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25952>but apparently it was > in the wrong place. And I referenced this

Re: structural & functional review of django documentation

his to some extent by adding redirects to the new locations). > > It seems to me you were pretty close to finding what you were looking for > at https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.9/ref/forms/ (first bullet, I > think), but I didn't understand what you meant by the page being "th

Re: structural & functional review of django documentation

Hey Tim -- Basically, we need data. My recommendation involves two separate initiatives. First is, has been, a discussion open for spectators but limited participants to core members. Asside from its subject pertaining current state and future path, all other details are above my pay grade.

Re: structural & functional review of django documentation

7;youll' made it in there, but a lot of these words are good candidates for the Glossary. Also, enclosed is another file listing the file sources for these words. Thanks again, On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 4:51:15 AM UTC-5, Aymeric Augustin wrote: > > On 2 janv. 2016, at 05:

Re: structural & functional review of django documentation

0 or more times. I don't know how words like 'youll' made it in there, but a lot of these words are good candidates for the Glossary. Also, enclosed is another file listing the file sources for these words. Thanks again, On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 4:51:15 AM UTC-5, Aymeric Au

Re: structural & functional review of django documentation

Hi Ned -- That is an excellent point! There was some back-and-forth about bread crumbs. It would be awesome if we not only implemented that, but used it to track user's progress through the docs, and collect this info. Thanks, -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Go

Re: structural & functional review of django documentation

Hi Scot -- Search terms would be another really great source of information. collecting these and somehow relating them to user's ensuing journey through the documentation could be very helpful. thanks, On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:45:56 AM UTC-5, Scot Hacker wrote: > > The written quality

got glossarium?

This thread is aimed at the specific issue pertaining to the Django Glossary. But first, after noticing, by accident, a huge spike of views on my G+ profile I think I should explain. I don't use G+ much because it seems kind-of goofey to me -- that's just me. If you want to see the real pict

Re: got glossarium?

For the third and final time, I appologize. On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-5, Doug Epling wrote: > > This thread is aimed at the specific issue pertaining to the Django > Glossary. > > But first, after noticing, by accident, a huge spike of views on my G+ >

Module Index

shouldn't this be here: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.9/py-modindex/#t -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an emai

Re: Module Index

; On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 6:05:55 AM UTC-5, Doug Epling wrote: >> >> shouldn't this be here: >> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.9/py-modindex/#t >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contr

Re: structural & functional review of django documentation

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 11:48:24 PM UTC-5, Doug Epling wrote: > > Hey Tim -- > > Basically, we need data. My recommendation involves two separate > initiatives. > > First is, has been, a discussion open for spectators but limited > participants to core m