Hi :) Once the Guides are updated for the 4.0.0 it would be more ideal if the docs team could work on the in-built help because 1. All the translator teams put a very high priority on translating the in-built help but don't get much time to do the guides
2. It's really, really ancient and out-of-date, around 8 years out-of-date! Possibly still referring to 'recent' changes in the name from StarOffice to OOo. It's going to be a pain to work with because of the xml tags but perhaps Kate or Gedit or something might help by colour-coding tags so they are easier to ignore. Some people are working on making the editors interface easier for non-devs to work with and one of those was an original founder of TDF so she's quite powerful and good at getting things done. If we could get others to help her it wouldn't hurt though. People from Ask are welcome to edit the wiki. Everything on the wiki is under 2 and half years old and people do work quite hard at it already. It's the nature of wiki's in general and LO's particularly that changes and improvements are always possible. So, although not quite perfect it is pretty good and does have people working on it. Other items that the docs team have put on their wish-list would be great too but it's the in-built help that would have the biggest impact. I'm just not sure we are able to deal with it. Regards from Tom :) >________________________________ > From: Robinson Tryon <bishop.robin...@gmail.com> >To: Marc Paré <m...@marcpare.com> >Cc: documentation <documentation@global.libreoffice.org> >Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013, 3:43 >Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Questions galore! > >On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Marc Paré <m...@marcpare.com> wrote: >>> >>> When I first went to the odfauthors.org site, I thought that it was a >>> site for end-users because of the highly-prominent links to books for >>> sale, but now I believe that the website is largely focused on >>> internal production. Perhaps there's something we can do to make >>> things more clear to regular users as well as to our volunteer >>> community. >> >> >> ODFAuthors have been partners with OOo and in particular with LibreOffice >> from the very start. > >cool. > >> Jean Hollis Weber of ODFAuthors is one of our most >> prolific contributors on the project, we also make use of ODFAuthor >> resources and goodwill. I believe it is we who should be thankful for >> ODFAuthors helping us out with the docs teams and resources. I doubt things >> would go as smoothly without Jean and her team at ODFAuthors who work at >> quite high professional standards. > >Yes, I'd previously run across the "Taming LibreOffice" website, but >didn't put the pieces together until just recently that she was the >head of the Documentation Team :-) > >> As far as I can remember, all that same information is already up on the Ask >> site. You just have to find it. No need to go to Archive.org. > >ok, cool. > >>>> IMO, most questions users ask on the Ask.LibreOffice.org site are >>>> probably >>>> best answered there, and, IMO, I don't see a reason to work on any >>>> user-related FAQ when the Ask.LibreOffice.org site is probably the best >>>> type >>>> of solution for a good living/breathing FAQ site. >>> >>> >>> Using the Ask site as the general FAQ as we go forward sounds like a >>> solid plan to me. The FAQ on the wiki currently has some overlap with >>> the Ask site: > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Faq >>> >>> What do you guys think about migrating questions from that FAQ to the >>> Ask site? I'd be happy to shepherd that work, if that's amenable to >>> you. >> >> >> I don't think this would be an acceptable option as the FAQ is, again, used >> in large part for contributor work. > >Ah, okay. Most of the questions on the FAQ on the wiki seem to relate >more to *use* of LibreOffice than being a *contributor* to the >project. The contributor-specific content I see on that page is a link >to the "List of Frequently Asked Questions for Development". > >These types of questions/categories seem like they're more suited to a >user-targeted FAQ: > >- "Spell-checking doesn't work !" >- "What are the system requirements for LibreOffice? " >- "How do I change the email client used by LibreOffice? " > >> IMO, there is nothing wrong with >> overlapping/doubling or information as people tend to operate in different >> ways; some like to get information from FAQ's, others from Ask sites, others >> from mailing lists, others from forums ... IMO, it is up to the site >> maintainers to triage the information appropriately so that it is factual >> (as best as one can get) for their own particular user base. To me, it >> doesn't sound like a good idea to remove a contributor tool for users when >> we are in need of contributors. > >I think doubling could be okay if we had enough manpower to maintain >all of our web properties. As you mention, we are in need of >contributors, and every additional copy of documentation or >information requires additional personnel to keep it fresh and up to >date. > >To wit, some of the entries in the wiki FAQ are merely pointers to >other pages (e.g. the System Requirements) and seem unlikely to >change. However there are other pages, such as the information about >supported file formats, or information about the user profile, that >may need more frequent updates: >https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Faq/General/012 >https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Faq/General/110 (redirects to >https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/UserProfile) >Also see https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/UserProfile > >I believe that since 3.6, LO has dropped support for export in some >StarOffice file formats, and I believe that the user profile for LO4 >is stored under .config/libreoffice/4/, but we haven't had a chance to >update that information yet. > >The Ask site is mostly reactive, rather than proactive, so while we do >have updated info about the StarOffice formats: >http://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/1839/i-have-some-old-star-office-writer-files-extension/ > >...we don't have up to date information about the User Profiles: >http://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/5899/user-profile/ >http://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/903/where-are-the-libreoffice-data-profile-files/ >http://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/4628/how-to-reset-user-profile-on-mac-osx-108-mountain/ > >The Ask site contributors seem to be basing their information on >what's on the wiki, so perhaps we should put a stronger emphasis on >keeping the information on the wiki up to date. I know that's a really >big task, but it's definitely worth some thought. > >>> - When answering a Q, there should be a clear/easy way to ask the Doc >>> Team where to find the latest documentation on a particular topic >>> >>> - If "How do I do X?" comes up and we don't have (can't find?) good >>> docs on it, there should be an easy way to ping the Doc team about the >>> need [File as an enhancement bug?] >>> >>> - The text of really good Answers should be fed back to the Doc team >>> for inclusion in the next iteration of the documentation [Not sure if >>> this should be a pull or a push action] >> >> This sounds more like a business model/plan where the people who work on the >> project are considered employees and not volunteers. While this sounds like >> an ideal plan, I would venture to guess that an organizational scheme of >> this magnitude would not work. This would set up too many regulations rather >> than opportunities to contribute. > >I'm not sure that my suggestions would introduce "regulations," but I >do agree with your general assessment. In particular, I believe that >what I'm describing is a more integrated workflow, and such a workflow >is difficult without a commitment from the senior members of each team >to make sure that incoming requests are dealt with promptly. It's >difficult to get that kind of a commitment from an all-volunteer team! > >> We are built on a meritocratic philosophy >> which is why we have seen so much growth in our dev section -- this is what >> is so attractive to our contributors. Unfortunately, our other contributor >> branches have not been able to keep up to the pace. It is all up to us to >> trumpet the values of our project and try to attract contributor in our >> branches. > >A little friendly competition for volunteer talent :-) So there's no >unified approach to attracting new talent, like a Volunteer >Coordinator? It would be neat to have some coordination on how we >could suggest people to participate. I know we have the page about >getting involved (https://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/), but >someone to help with proactive recruitment might not be a bad idea. > >> IMO, the quickest fix for the problem at hand is still the rationalization >> of the Ask site, culling the question/answers that are on the database at >> the present time ... I know it is a big job ... but regardless of any fix, >> you will still have to do this. > >I think one of the strengths of the Ask site is the ability for users >to see a variety of questions and answers. We could consider >"curating" the site more, but that would require more users to step up >into positions of greater power and responsibility, and require some >tough calls because we can't easily combine information from two >questions into a single question. Closing questions is reversible (and >those questions are still searchable), but I'm much more cautious >about deleting content. In any case, any culling of the answers will >need to wait a bit until we've dealt with our backlog. > >> It also sounds like the Ask site should try >> to involve more contributors on their site to help with responses to user >> questions, have you tried to grow your contributor base by inviting regular >> competent participants to join your ranks? > >Yes, I've definitely asked some people to join us. I've also lost a >couple of key contributors. One of the issues is that the Ask site >doesn't have a unified mailing list, IRC channel, or forum for us to >cultivate a community. Our only interaction is through Questions, >Answers, and Comments (which can lead to some interesting situations, >like using comments on an Answer as a poor-man's forum thread :-) > >> IMO, the fact that there are different contributor FAQ's are fine, the user >> FAQ is supposed to the the Ask site. > >(not sure what you were intending to say here) > >> And yes, unfortunately, there may be >> some overlapping, but the quality of answers on the site still remains the >> responsibility of the people behind the Ask site. > >If, when you say "the people behind the Ask site" you mean the >mods/admins, I'm not sure I agree. The quality of the answers on the >Ask site comes from how vibrant a community we create, and how >involved our senior, knowledgeable members become. The people behind >the Ask site -- the mods, admins, etc -- are already kept busy by a >lot of 'housekeeping' tasks, and some of the key members also try to >make sure that every question gets at least a cursory answer. I think >we all strive for quality, but don't always have time to give each >question the care and research that it deserves. > >To compare with a similar situation, would you say that the >Documentation Team is currently responsible for the quality of the >documentation on the wiki? > >> Note that I am not annoyed with your questions nor with your suggestions. >> But, it looks to me that you are looking for answers to the problems on the >> Ask site in the wrong places. Once the Ask site is cleaned up, you may find >> that most of the problems will have lessened. >> >> But, as we are following meritocratic philosophical values on the project, >> there is nothing to stop you from organizing such a structure as you >> describe, and, perhaps it may be adopted by the rest of us. Put in writing >> on a wiki for people to read and if you find enough contributors to run it, >> then we may all follow. It may work! > >Fair enough. I believe that better coordination between the >Documentation Team and the members of the Ask site could be very >helpful to the user-support process, and I'll do what I can to help >keep the lines of communication open. Putting proposals up on the wiki >sounds like a good step once I've had a bit more experience >interacting with the different teams and can formulate more complete >solutions. For now, I'll join as many lists as I can handle, fix bits >and pieces here and there, and learn a bit more about how the various >parts of LO operate :-) > > >Cheers, >--R > >-- >Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org >Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ >All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted > > > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
